Dylan Beaudette wrote: > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Markus Metz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I took the request for MFD support in r.watershed by Helena and Dylan to >> heart and implemented it, but still need a few more days to clean up the >> code, then I want to submit it as r.watershed2.mfd to grass-addons. >> >> > Is there any way to > cleanly merge this with the existing r.watershed code in SVN so that > we can test it? > Also considering Michael's remarks, I suggets that I then not submit to grass-addons, but to grass 7. Not to grass-6.4.x, because this code is now more experimental and documentation still needs to be written. The MFD algorithm seems to be robust and produces the expected results with nice differences according to the convergence factor, but the other outputs are different and I don't know yet if this is ok and desired or not. The basins and half-basins are different, less so for coarser resolution, rather disastrous with MFD for the 1m LIDAR DEM in the North Carolina dataset. It seems that such a DEM should be processed with coarser resolution to obtain basins and half-basins that make sense, apparently both for SFD and MFD, but these a just first impressions. Slope length (LS for USLE) and slope steepness (S for USLE) are about 99.9% identical between SFD and MFD with the DEM <elevation> in the North Carolina dataset. Streams are again different, i.e. MFD streams need to be thinned then they are very similar to SFD, but MFD streams make sense. Once I have added MFD to segmented mode too and updated the documentation, the module is ready to be submitted and scrutinised by others.
This is no easy feat to modify r.watershed, I want to make sure the old behaviour is preserved when adding new functionality and I need some more time before submitting. I don't like to submit code with bugs... Markus Metz _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev