Hello all. I’m probably reinventing the wheel here and wonder if somebody can
point me in a better direction.
I have about 10 surfaces of signal strength (z) received at a transmitter. Here
I’ll provide an example with four surfaces `r1`, `r2`, `r3`, `r4`.
library(raster)
library(gstat)
set.seed(3178)
n <- 100
r0 <- raster(nrows=n, ncols=n,xmn=1, xmx=n,ymn=1,ymx=n)
r0 <- as(r0,"SpatialGrid")
pts <- data.frame(x=c(10,20,60,80,1,1,n,n),y=c(10,80,70,40,1,n,1,n),
id=c(1:4,rep(0,4)), z=c(c(rep(1,4)),rep(0,4)))
pts <- SpatialPointsDataFrame(pts[,1:2],data=pts[,3:4])
r1 <- idw(z~1,pts[c(1,5:8),],newdata=r0)
r2 <- idw(z~1,pts[c(2,5:8),],newdata=r0)
r3 <- idw(z~1,pts[c(3,5:8),],newdata=r0)
r4 <- idw(z~1,pts[c(4,5:8),],newdata=r0)
r1 <- raster(r1)
r2 <- raster(r2)
r3 <- raster(r3)
r4 <- raster(r4)
I also have a series of points with signal strengths that correspond to each
surface. The locations of these points is unknown. The task is to determine a
location for each point. E.g., for `unknownXY`:
# Extract a point. For the real data I would have the z data but not x and y
cell2get <- floor(runif(1,1,n^2))
unknownXY <- c(extract(brick(r1,r2,r3,r4),cell2get))
In this case there is a four-way intersection of the contour lines that I could
find suing some kind of intersection technique (e.g., `rgeos::gIntersection`).
# Here is the the contour for the unknown point on each raster
plot(r1,axes=F)
contour(r1,levels=unknownXY[1],add=TRUE)
plot(r2,axes=F)
contour(r2,levels=unknownXY[2],add=TRUE)
plot(r3,axes=F)
contour(r3,levels=unknownXY[3],add=TRUE)
plot(r4,axes=F)
contour(r4,levels=unknownXY[4],add=TRUE)
# here are all 4 contours
plot(r0,axes=F,col="white")
contour(r1,levels=unknownXY[1],add=TRUE,drawlabels=FALSE,col="red")
contour(r2,levels=unknownXY[2],add=TRUE,drawlabels=FALSE,col="blue")
contour(r3,levels=unknownXY[3],add=TRUE,drawlabels=FALSE,col="purple")
contour(r4,levels=unknownXY[4],add=TRUE,drawlabels=FALSE,col="green")
But there are times when, I think, that there will not be a completely pure
intersection (e.g., the contours will not exactly overlap). In that case I’m
wondering about using a probabilistic method for finding x,y for a given vector
of z.
One thing I was thinking was calculating distances. E.g.,
# calc distances
r1d <- sqrt((unknownXY[1] - r1)^2)
r2d <- sqrt((unknownXY[2] - r2)^2)
r3d <- sqrt((unknownXY[3] - r3)^2)
r4d <- sqrt((unknownXY[4] - r4)^2)
plot(brick(r1d,r2d,r3d,r4d))
And them summing them:
# Straight sum? Should they be weighted in some manner?
rdSum <- sum(brick(r1d,r2d,r3d,r4d))
plot(rdSum)
I could find the min value to get the ``best'' point:
# Use min to get possible location. Seems easy to get trapped.
rdSumMin <- rdSum == minValue(rdSum)
plot(rdSumMin)
Or use a threshold value to get a series of locations that are the most likely:
# Or use quantile to get possible locations?
thresh <- quantile(rdSum, probs = c(0.01))
rdSum99 <- rdSum < thresh
plot(rdSum99)
What I’m wondering it whether there is a way of finding a surface that is
explicitly probabilistic. What I’d like to do is be able to determine possible
location with x% likelihood.
Any ideas, tips, tricks, appreciated.
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
_______________________________________________
R-sig-Geo mailing list
R-sig-Geo@r-project.org
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-geo
