From: Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_natural.jpg
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_fgfs.jpg
Someone was complaining about the lake in the middle of the city.
I suspect it is the age of the vmap dataset that is to
Alex Perry writes:
From: Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_natural.jpg
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_fgfs.jpg
Someone was complaining about the lake in the middle of the city.
I suspect it is the age of the
On Monday, September 8, 2003, at 04:07 pm, Alex Perry wrote:
I suspect that, since the vmap data was collected, the dips were
drained
and thereby turned into the parkland that you see in the photo.
The problem is, that 'lake' is the Golden Gate Park. Having it be
anything other than green
James Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The impression I have is that no matter what texture is picked for
'default' landcover, it's going to be massively, obviously wrong much
of the time.
This leads to the assumption that there is need for another source of
landcover data. The SRTM mision
Curtis L. Olson writes:
The real issue here is what texture should we choose for default
areas for which vmap0 has no coverage opinion?
It would be nice if we could do some kind of weighted average of the
surrounding areas, excluding water. At least we'd be less likely to
get something out
David Megginson writes:
Curtis L. Olson writes:
The real issue here is what texture should we choose for default
areas for which vmap0 has no coverage opinion?
It would be nice if we could do some kind of weighted average of the
surrounding areas, excluding water. At least we'd be
Julian Foad writes:
Norman Vine wrote:
Also for water area delineation the Hydrographic database in the message
I forwarded to the terragear list should be quite good as it has had *lots* of
corrections applied
The fact that something has had lots of corrections applied does not
On Monday 08 Sep 2003 16:15, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Alex Perry writes:
From: Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_natural.jpg
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_fgfs.jpg
Someone was complaining about the lake
Could you not replace all 'default' coverage with one of the coverages
bounding the area of default cover?
I thought about that too, but I think it will destroy some detail. There's a
small lake in the west of Amsterdam that turns up as default coverage. I
use it when I fly around the place,
