On 14/07/09 15:00, Hamish wrote:
Moritz wrote:
So, differences are non-negligeable, but no idea how to
interpret them at this stage, i.e. don't know which one is
"correct".
I would suggect to try with some simple geometric cost, like
was done for the Knight's move example graphic in the r.cost
help page. Then you can use your eye to locate differing bias
(e.g. from 8/16 compass points).
Ok, here's a try:
g.region n=10 s=0 w=0 e=10 res=1 -a
r.mapcalc one=1.0
echo "5|5" | v.in.ascii out=start
v.to.rast start use=val val=1 out=start
r.cost -k one start_rast=start out=r_cost
r.terracost one start_rast=start out=terra_cost
d.rast.num r_cost
d.rast.num terra_cost
This gives:
r.cost: http://geog-pc40.ulb.ac.be/grass/misc/r_cost.png
r.terracost: http://geog-pc40.ulb.ac.be/grass/misc/terra_cost.png
It seems as if r.terracost only counts have a distance between the
original cell and its neighbors, but then goes on to count complete
distances. This seems to be enough to explain the difference between the
two results.
Don't know what is generally considered the "right" way, but intuitively
I would side with r.cost.
Moritz
_______________________________________________
grass-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user
