On Thu, 16 Aug 2018, Moritz Lennert wrote:
When working with the raster approach to geographical data, the user has
to make a (more or less arbitrary) choice on the extent of the zone he
wishes to work on and on the resolution within that zone. This is what
g.region allows you to do: it defines
On 16/08/18 16:32, Rich Shepard wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2018, Vaclav Petras wrote:
No, r.region changes the "region" of the raster map itself, i.e. changes
its extent and resolution. The data stays the same. Its changes the
metadata. The effect is stretching, shrinking, or moving the raster map.
On Wed, 15 Aug 2018, Vaclav Petras wrote:
No, r.region changes the "region" of the raster map itself, i.e. changes
its extent and resolution. The data stays the same. Its changes the
metadata. The effect is stretching, shrinking, or moving the raster map.
Any suggestions for improvement of the
On Wed, 15 Aug 2018, Vaclav Petras wrote:
No, r.region changes the "region" of the raster map itself, i.e. changes
its extent and resolution. The data stays the same. Its changes the
metadata. The effect is stretching, shrinking, or moving the raster map.
Any suggestions for improvement of the
Hi Rich,
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Rich Shepard
wrote:
>
> Does applying r.region to a portion of a large raster map functionally
> reduce the size of the map,
No, r.region changes the "region" of the raster map itself, i.e. changes
its extent and resolution. The data stays the same. Its
