On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Moritz Lennert < mlenn...@club.worldonline.be> wrote:
> On 24/09/14 14:08, Paulo van Breugel wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Moritz Lennert >> It thus does not make sense to provide coordinates for count or >> area: which coordinates would you use if you have cells with the >> same category all over your map ? >> >> >> It makes sense if each raster cell is assigned an unique category (which >> I did). What I was trying was get the area per raster cell (of a latlon >> raster). But yes, it makes sense that in in general it wouldn't be >> logical to have coordinates and area at the same time. I was too much >> focussed on my very specific case (trying an alternative way to get >> raster cell size of latlon grid). >> > > Ok, now I understand your problem, but honestly, in such a situation I > believe that it is better to chose a relevant projection, reproject the > grid and then just use resolution^2 as cell size... > > But since you already have gone down the route of calculating cell size in > r.mapcalc, I guess you really wanted to do it in latlon... ;-) > > Yes, more convenient in this case. I can compute the area directly using r.mapcalc, so no problem. I was just trying if this would be an easier / faster method. Thanks for your reply! > Moritz >
_______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
