Dear Helena,
> I believe that any reasonable estimate is better than the current
> shrinking region (in r.flow we just
> propagate the same values to the edges), but that does not seem to be the
> consensus.
I agree with you that a reasonable estimate is better than the current
situation.
I'v
Helmut,
you can use r.resamp.rst which computes slope and aspect and does not shrink
the region. But you may need to adjust the parameters
to make sure it works well.
Another way would be to modify r.slope.aspect to compute the values at the
edges - a second order polynomial min.square approxim
Hi Pietro,
>this is not a bug.
I unterstand the same. my question is more about how to implemented the
mentioned iterative algorithm which uses coarser resolution by each step and
how to avoid an extent shrinking of e.g. about 400m with the coarsest
resolution.
-
best regards
Helmut
--
Vi
Dear Helmut,
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Helmut Kudrnovsky wrote:
> as the extent of the r.slope.aspect output is 1 pixel less then DEM input,
> the extent of the calculation output shrinks from one step to the next as
> the resolution is coarsening.
>
> any idea how to overcome such a shrink
Helmut Kudrnovsky wrote
> hi devs,
>
> I've added a script [1] with following calculations ideas:
>
> - do some calculations with r.slope.aspect output
> - coarse the resolution (but meet the DEM extent)
> - do some calculations with r.slope.aspect output at the coarser
> resolution
> - coarse th
hi devs,
I've added a script [1] with following calculations ideas:
- do some calculations with r.slope.aspect output
- coarse the resolution (but meet the DEM extent)
- do some calculations with r.slope.aspect output at the coarser resolution
- coarse the resolution again (but meet the DEM exte