We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Hello QWAT team,
some official survey offices use more part types than those provided in the official QWAT data model, for example (here in french) :
whereas the actual QWAT data model only provides those values:
SELECT id, value_fr, value_en, value_ro FROM qwat_vl.part_type;
Therefore, the correspondence is complicated. This is especially true as there are no "unknown"-like values.
That's why I'm asking if it could be possible to integrate, at least the most common values in the official QWAT data model?
(It would also be convenient to use the default values 101, 102 and 103 (see: #378 ))
101
102
103
Thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Very good input, it would be nice to list elements not in this list and check whether they are not in some other class in QWAT.
I've added a delta to your PR.
Sorry, something went wrong.
No branches or pull requests
Hello QWAT team,
some official survey offices use more part types than those provided in the official QWAT data model, for example (here in french) :
whereas the actual QWAT data model only provides those values:
Therefore, the correspondence is complicated. This is especially true as there are no "unknown"-like values.
That's why I'm asking if it could be possible to integrate, at least the most common values in the official QWAT data model?
(It would also be convenient to use the default values
101
,102
and103
(see: #378 ))Thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: