Re: [GRASS-dev] Re: grass-dev Digest, Vol 33, Issue 37
Helena Mitasova wrote: On Jan 17, 2009, at 12:07 AM, Michael Barton wrote: Markus, I compiled last night and was able to try this on my Mac this evening. No problem at all with the North Carolina elev_lid792_1m DEM. Everything ran very fast, of course--even though it runs at 32bit on the Mac. As expected, the MFD results look much more realistic than the SFD results. Much less linearity and more sinuosity. I can post the displays if anyone wants to see them. No errors from the command. No errors in compiling. Seems to work fine on the Mac. I'm not sure why this can't be backported to develbranch_6 since 6.4RCx is already out. Does it change any of the r.watershed arguments or behavior using the pre-MFD arguments? Yes, MFD is default, so using the same arguments produces different results. See also my reply to Helena: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/2009-January/041965.html I would prefer to stay out of the discussion about backporting and leave this decision to the long-time developers. Michael - it needs to be thoroughly tested on wide range of data before replacing it. I am trying to get to it too and Markus M has done already quite a bit of testing himself. If you can ask Isaac and/or whoever has grass7 and is around to test it with different data (wide range of resolutions, data sources, combinations of parameters, integer or float DEMs, latlong, different size and type of depressions etc.) that would help. I fully agree. BTW (repeating myself), the results improve a lot if float DEMs are multiplied with 100 or 1000 before used as input. Markus M ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] Re: grass-dev Digest, Vol 33, Issue 37
Michael Barton wrote: On Jan 15, 2009, at 5:22 AM, grass-dev-requ...@lists.osgeo.org wrote: [...] Comment (by mmetz): I have submitted a new version of r.watershed to trunk with various changes [..] Markus, Can this go into develbranch_6 too? According to Markus Neteler, not as long as develbranch_6 is 6.4. If the version of develbranch_6 is changed to 6.5, I can think about asking to backport again. I will however continue to do active development in grass7. What I can do is to give instructions on how to add r.watershed from grass7 to grass6 manually on a local copy so that a subsequent svn up for grass6 doesn't create a mess. Of course this would be purely for testing purposes. Markus M Michael ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] Re: grass-dev Digest, Vol 33, Issue 37
Markus, I compiled last night and was able to try this on my Mac this evening. No problem at all with the North Carolina elev_lid792_1m DEM. Everything ran very fast, of course--even though it runs at 32bit on the Mac. As expected, the MFD results look much more realistic than the SFD results. Much less linearity and more sinuosity. I can post the displays if anyone wants to see them. No errors from the command. No errors in compiling. Seems to work fine on the Mac. I'm not sure why this can't be backported to develbranch_6 since 6.4RCx is already out. Does it change any of the r.watershed arguments or behavior using the pre-MFD arguments? Michael On Jan 15, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Markus Metz wrote: Michael Barton wrote: On Jan 15, 2009, at 5:22 AM, grass-dev-requ...@lists.osgeo.org wrote: [...] Comment (by mmetz): I have submitted a new version of r.watershed to trunk with various changes [...] Markus, Can this go into develbranch_6 too? I hope so:-) But I would like to get the new functionality tested by others before it is backported in case I missed something. You mentioned that you are testing the new functionality, and you are using Mac while I use Linux 64bit, so if the new version runs fine and produces proper results on your system that would be encouraging! Below are test scripts for the North Carolina sample dataset nc_spm_08 and the Spearfish dataset spearfish60. You can copy the commands for each dataset into a script and then run the script, after updating to today's version of r.watershed:-) Markus M Testing commands for the elevation map elev_lid792_1m in the North Carolina sample dataset nc_spm_08. SFD and MFD output is strikingly different. g.region rast=elev_lid792_1m # multiply elev_lid792_1m to get millimetres as vertical units r.mapcalc elev_lid792_1m.1mm = round(elev_lid792_1m * 1000.0) # SFD (D8) flow distribution r.watershed elev=elev_lid792_1m.1mm threshold=3000 \ accum=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.acc.sfd drain=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.drain.sfd \ basin=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.basin.sfd stream=elev_lid792_1m. 1mm.stream.sfd \ half_b=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.halfb.sfd vis=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.viz.sfd \ length_sl=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.ls.sfd slope_st=elev_lid792_1m. 1mm.sls.sfd -s # MFD flow distribution r.watershed elev=elev_lid792_1m.1mm threshold=3000 \ accum=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.acc.mfd drain=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.drain.mfd \ basin=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.basin.mfd stream=elev_lid792_1m. 1mm.stream.mfd \ half_b=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.halfb.mfd vis=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.viz.mfd \ length_sl=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.ls.mfd slope_st=elev_lid792_1m. 1mm.sls.mfd \ convergence=5 Testing commands for the elevation map elevation.10m in the Spearfish sample dataset spearfish60. Differences between SFD and MFD are mainly in the northern half. g.region rast=elevation.10m # multiply elevation.10m to get centimetres as vertical units r.mapcalc elevation.10m.1cm = round(elevation.10m * 100.0) # SFD (D8) flow distribution r.watershed elev=elevation.10m.1cm threshold=3000 \ accum=elevation.10m.1cm.acc.sfd drain=elevation.10m.1cm.drain.sfd \ basin=elevation.10m.1cm.basin.sfd stream=elevation.10m. 1cm.stream.sfd \ half_b=elevation.10m.1cm.halfb.sfd vis=elevation.10m.1cm.viz.sfd \ length_sl=elevation.10m.1cm.ls.sfd slope_st=elevation.10m. 1cm.sls.sfd -s # MFD flow distribution r.watershed elev=elevation.10m.1cm threshold=3000 \ accum=elevation.10m.1cm.acc.mfd drain=elevation.10m.1cm.drain.mfd \ basin=elevation.10m.1cm.basin.mfd stream=elevation.10m. 1cm.stream.mfd \ half_b=elevation.10m.1cm.halfb.mfd vis=elevation.10m.1cm.viz.mfd \ length_sl=elevation.10m.1cm.ls.mfd slope_st=elevation.10m. 1cm.sls.mfd \ convergence=5 Michael ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] Re: grass-dev Digest, Vol 33, Issue 37
On Jan 17, 2009, at 12:07 AM, Michael Barton wrote: Markus, I compiled last night and was able to try this on my Mac this evening. No problem at all with the North Carolina elev_lid792_1m DEM. Everything ran very fast, of course--even though it runs at 32bit on the Mac. As expected, the MFD results look much more realistic than the SFD results. Much less linearity and more sinuosity. I can post the displays if anyone wants to see them. No errors from the command. No errors in compiling. Seems to work fine on the Mac. I'm not sure why this can't be backported to develbranch_6 since 6.4RCx is already out. Does it change any of the r.watershed arguments or behavior using the pre-MFD arguments? Michael - it needs to be thoroughly tested on wide range of data before replacing it. I am trying to get to it too and Markus M has done already quite a bit of testing himself. If you can ask Isaac and/ or whoever has grass7 and is around to test it with different data (wide range of resolutions, data sources, combinations of parameters, integer or float DEMs, latlong, different size and type of depressions etc.) that would help. Has anybody any other issues with the new r.watershed than testing? Helena Michael On Jan 15, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Markus Metz wrote: Michael Barton wrote: On Jan 15, 2009, at 5:22 AM, grass-dev-requ...@lists.osgeo.org wrote: [...] Comment (by mmetz): I have submitted a new version of r.watershed to trunk with various changes [...] Markus, Can this go into develbranch_6 too? I hope so:-) But I would like to get the new functionality tested by others before it is backported in case I missed something. You mentioned that you are testing the new functionality, and you are using Mac while I use Linux 64bit, so if the new version runs fine and produces proper results on your system that would be encouraging! Below are test scripts for the North Carolina sample dataset nc_spm_08 and the Spearfish dataset spearfish60. You can copy the commands for each dataset into a script and then run the script, after updating to today's version of r.watershed:-) Markus M Testing commands for the elevation map elev_lid792_1m in the North Carolina sample dataset nc_spm_08. SFD and MFD output is strikingly different. g.region rast=elev_lid792_1m # multiply elev_lid792_1m to get millimetres as vertical units r.mapcalc elev_lid792_1m.1mm = round(elev_lid792_1m * 1000.0) # SFD (D8) flow distribution r.watershed elev=elev_lid792_1m.1mm threshold=3000 \ accum=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.acc.sfd drain=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.drain.sfd \ basin=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.basin.sfd stream=elev_lid792_1m. 1mm.stream.sfd \ half_b=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.halfb.sfd vis=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.viz.sfd \ length_sl=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.ls.sfd slope_st=elev_lid792_1m. 1mm.sls.sfd -s # MFD flow distribution r.watershed elev=elev_lid792_1m.1mm threshold=3000 \ accum=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.acc.mfd drain=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.drain.mfd \ basin=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.basin.mfd stream=elev_lid792_1m. 1mm.stream.mfd \ half_b=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.halfb.mfd vis=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.viz.mfd \ length_sl=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.ls.mfd slope_st=elev_lid792_1m. 1mm.sls.mfd \ convergence=5 Testing commands for the elevation map elevation.10m in the Spearfish sample dataset spearfish60. Differences between SFD and MFD are mainly in the northern half. g.region rast=elevation.10m # multiply elevation.10m to get centimetres as vertical units r.mapcalc elevation.10m.1cm = round(elevation.10m * 100.0) # SFD (D8) flow distribution r.watershed elev=elevation.10m.1cm threshold=3000 \ accum=elevation.10m.1cm.acc.sfd drain=elevation.10m.1cm.drain.sfd \ basin=elevation.10m.1cm.basin.sfd stream=elevation.10m. 1cm.stream.sfd \ half_b=elevation.10m.1cm.halfb.sfd vis=elevation.10m.1cm.viz.sfd \ length_sl=elevation.10m.1cm.ls.sfd slope_st=elevation.10m. 1cm.sls.sfd -s # MFD flow distribution r.watershed elev=elevation.10m.1cm threshold=3000 \ accum=elevation.10m.1cm.acc.mfd drain=elevation.10m.1cm.drain.mfd \ basin=elevation.10m.1cm.basin.mfd stream=elevation.10m. 1cm.stream.mfd \ half_b=elevation.10m.1cm.halfb.mfd vis=elevation.10m.1cm.viz.mfd \ length_sl=elevation.10m.1cm.ls.mfd slope_st=elevation.10m. 1cm.sls.mfd \ convergence=5 Michael ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
[GRASS-dev] Re: grass-dev Digest, Vol 33, Issue 37
On Jan 15, 2009, at 5:22 AM, grass-dev-requ...@lists.osgeo.org wrote: Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:39:00 - From: GRASS GIS t...@osgeo.org Subject: [GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #398: r.watershed with MFD To: undisclosed-recipients:; Message-ID: 048.b6a7364e017fd287d20f06fe708ae...@osgeo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 #398: r.watershed with MFD -- +- Reporter: mmetz| Owner: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org Type: enhancement | Status: reopened Priority: minor| Milestone: 7.0.0 Component: Raster | Version: svn-trunk Resolution: |Keywords: Platform: Unspecified | Cpu: Unspecified -- +- Comment (by mmetz): I have submitted a new version of r.watershed to trunk with various changes MFD is fully supported: drainage directions, stream segments, basins, half-basins, RUSLE LS and S factors are all in accordance with MFD flow accumulation. The module is slightly faster and uses a bit less memory. See updated documentation to estimate memory requirements for the ram (all in memory) mode (max 31 MB of RAM for 1 million cells). It is no longer necessary to create a MASK for cells with unknown elevation (NULL values). All cells with unknown elevation (masked or NULL values) are skipped. Zero and negative values are valid elevation values. The color rules generated by the module for flow accumulation have worked for all tests so far and allow visual inspection without manually assigning a color table. I'm using standard deviation and log transform, based on Hamish's (I think) suggestions. Visual output is obsolete but left for comparison. The output drainage direction is slightly changed in case an input map with real depressions was supplied. Previously, real depressions had a drainage direction of -1, but -1 was and is a valid drainage direction indicating a drainage of 45 degree CCW from East towards a cell with unknown elevation. Therefore real depressions have now a drainage direction of 0. As before, if a cell drains due East the drainage direction is 360 degrees, 0 (zero) as drainage direction was unused. RUSLE LS and S factor output maps are now of type DCELL without multiplication by 100. Both factors have always been processed as type double, previously the output maps for the two factors were written out by typecasting from (DCELL * 100) to CELL. Please read the updated documentation before using the new module. Best regards, Markus, Can this go into develbranch_6 too? Michael ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] Re: grass-dev Digest, Vol 33, Issue 37
Michael Barton wrote: On Jan 15, 2009, at 5:22 AM, grass-dev-requ...@lists.osgeo.org wrote: [...] Comment (by mmetz): I have submitted a new version of r.watershed to trunk with various changes [...] Markus, Can this go into develbranch_6 too? I hope so:-) But I would like to get the new functionality tested by others before it is backported in case I missed something. You mentioned that you are testing the new functionality, and you are using Mac while I use Linux 64bit, so if the new version runs fine and produces proper results on your system that would be encouraging! Below are test scripts for the North Carolina sample dataset nc_spm_08 and the Spearfish dataset spearfish60. You can copy the commands for each dataset into a script and then run the script, after updating to today's version of r.watershed:-) Markus M Testing commands for the elevation map elev_lid792_1m in the North Carolina sample dataset nc_spm_08. SFD and MFD output is strikingly different. g.region rast=elev_lid792_1m # multiply elev_lid792_1m to get millimetres as vertical units r.mapcalc elev_lid792_1m.1mm = round(elev_lid792_1m * 1000.0) # SFD (D8) flow distribution r.watershed elev=elev_lid792_1m.1mm threshold=3000 \ accum=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.acc.sfd drain=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.drain.sfd \ basin=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.basin.sfd stream=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.stream.sfd \ half_b=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.halfb.sfd vis=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.viz.sfd \ length_sl=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.ls.sfd slope_st=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.sls.sfd -s # MFD flow distribution r.watershed elev=elev_lid792_1m.1mm threshold=3000 \ accum=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.acc.mfd drain=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.drain.mfd \ basin=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.basin.mfd stream=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.stream.mfd \ half_b=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.halfb.mfd vis=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.viz.mfd \ length_sl=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.ls.mfd slope_st=elev_lid792_1m.1mm.sls.mfd \ convergence=5 Testing commands for the elevation map elevation.10m in the Spearfish sample dataset spearfish60. Differences between SFD and MFD are mainly in the northern half. g.region rast=elevation.10m # multiply elevation.10m to get centimetres as vertical units r.mapcalc elevation.10m.1cm = round(elevation.10m * 100.0) # SFD (D8) flow distribution r.watershed elev=elevation.10m.1cm threshold=3000 \ accum=elevation.10m.1cm.acc.sfd drain=elevation.10m.1cm.drain.sfd \ basin=elevation.10m.1cm.basin.sfd stream=elevation.10m.1cm.stream.sfd \ half_b=elevation.10m.1cm.halfb.sfd vis=elevation.10m.1cm.viz.sfd \ length_sl=elevation.10m.1cm.ls.sfd slope_st=elevation.10m.1cm.sls.sfd -s # MFD flow distribution r.watershed elev=elevation.10m.1cm threshold=3000 \ accum=elevation.10m.1cm.acc.mfd drain=elevation.10m.1cm.drain.mfd \ basin=elevation.10m.1cm.basin.mfd stream=elevation.10m.1cm.stream.mfd \ half_b=elevation.10m.1cm.halfb.mfd vis=elevation.10m.1cm.viz.mfd \ length_sl=elevation.10m.1cm.ls.mfd slope_st=elevation.10m.1cm.sls.mfd \ convergence=5 Michael ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
