Michael Barton wrote:
> > I'm having problems getting a MASK to actually mask anything.
> >
> > $ r.mask in=Diff_Nov2007_Oct2007_1m
> > MASK created. All subsequent raster operations
> > will be limited to MASK area
> > Removing or renaming raster file named MASK will
> > restore raster operation
On Feb 5, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Patton, Eric wrote:
The way I understand it is that a MASK will affect all subsequent
*read* operations for processing a raster map. That is...
r.mapcalc 'newmap=oldmap'
...will just produce an unaltered copy of oldmap without a MASK; with
a MASK it will produce a
>The way I understand it is that a MASK will affect all subsequent
>*read* operations for processing a raster map. That is...
>
>r.mapcalc 'newmap=oldmap'
>
>...will just produce an unaltered copy of oldmap without a MASK; with
>a MASK it will produce a copy of oldmap only in the area of MASK.
Hi,
[snip]
2008/2/5, Michael Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The way I understand it is that a MASK will affect all subsequent
> *read* operations for processing a raster map. That is...
>
> r.mapcalc 'newmap=oldmap'
>
> ...will just produce an unaltered copy of oldmap without a MASK; with
> a MASK
On Feb 5, 2008, at 8:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:20:02 -0500
From: "Patton, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [GRASS-dev] MASK seems to be ignored
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTE
Hi,
I'm having problems getting a MASK to actually mask anything.
$ r.mask in=Diff_Nov2007_Oct2007_1m
MASK created. All subsequent raster operations
will be limited to MASK area
Removing or renaming raster file named MASK will
restore raster operations to normal
[Raster MASK present]
Yet all ref
