I used a re-sampling to 30m of SRTM-DEM (made by Brazilian INPE) and observe a visual superposition between GRASS-r.watershed river network output and 2001 Landsat7 deforested areas (the nearest date after SRTM) (see http://yepca.org/wp3/?p=349) As you suggest, I'll verify if CGIAR SRTM-DEM is better in such flat area with forest/cultivation patchwork. In first analyze, ASTER GDEM gave better river network, even with the theses 20-30m holes or larges areas artifacts!... but more job is necessary to verify and understand why!
Sylv 2011/8/24 maning sambale <emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com> > +1 We conducted our own site specific comparison and we concluded that > SRTM is much better especially those post-processed by CGIAR. > >> > >> Depending on where you are there are issues with ASTER GDEM: > >> http://gis.cri.fmach.it/aster-gdem-quality/ > >> > >> Markus > > > > Or in flat tropical area... > > http://yepca.org/wp3/?p=303 > Thanks! Shared and bookmarked this site! > > -- > cheers, > maning > ------------------------------------------------------ > "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden > wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ > blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ > ------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
