Dear all, I do not think someone reacted on my concern/question about non-polygonal cell boundaries. Maybe I am the only one with this issue or maybe this topic went un-noticed because of heavy load on the CF list at that time.
I thus re-post my original message in hope that someone will comment on it (or point me to an archived thread that I did not yet see). Original post: > Hi everyone, > > I refer to Chapter 7 on "Data Representative of Cells", 7.1 "Cell > Boundaries". > > The specification of those boundaries seems to biased towards > polygonal boundaries (in the case of a 2D surface). This covers > certainly most of the needs but what happens if the cell is defined as > a disc of radius x km (with center at the coordinate value)? > > Of course, I can always give 10 to 10,000 vertices that will > approximate my disc but it does not sound very neat nor efficient. We > would have to somehow move away from listing the 'bounds' and start > describing the shape of the cell (disc, ellipse, rectangle, etc...). > Note that the concepts of "cell measures" and "cell methods" would > still perfectly hold. > > One example of such a dataset would be one where at each grid location > we report the mean/minimum/maximum temperature or pressure recorded by > any station found in a radius of, say, 30 km around the central > point. > > Another example is satellite data in swath projection where each > record is associated to a Field Of View, which is often approximated > as a an ellipse. > > Did someone give it a thought already? _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
