review on proposed subsetting for soil env_local_scale terms

[aclum]

• is the thought that children below the bolded box in anatomical_entity_environment-excluded-from-env_local_scale.png should be covered by corresponding biomes which would go in env_broad_scale? fungai-associated environment for example could be applicable to soil

• IMO worth keeping children from area_protected_according_to_IUCN_guidelines-excluded-from-env_local_scale.png and protected_area-excluded-from-env_local_scale.png

• some of these are too small, list would be better to review (ex bodily_fluid_material-excluded-from-env_local_scale.png

• children of ditch in channel_of_a_watercourse-excluded-from-env_local_scale.png could be useful

• some children of observing system are useful, especially terrestrial observatory system

• mark already mentioned this in comments but some children of transport feature are applicable (ex driveway)

[turbomam]

• I'll add tabular reports for the large/hard to read visualizations (although panning and zooming may help to some degree)
• This and the following issue are very useful feedback, but my glib response would be "how much additional value would we get from adding these terms do the Soil, Water, Sediment or Plant Associated environments?"
  • how many terms to display in the submission portal per env context term #15