#518: negative flow accumulation with r.watershed SFD or MFD
--+-
Reporter: dylan| Owner: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
Type: enhancement | Status: closed
Priority: major
#518: negative flow accumulation with r.watershed SFD or MFD
--+-
Reporter: dylan| Owner: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major
Thanks!
Michael
On Mar 8, 2009, at 12:08 AM, Markus Metz wrote:
Michael Barton wrote:
On Mar 7, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Helena Mitasova wrote:
There is no question that the default should be kept negative,
although checking whether the result
is correct would not hurt - we can look at it wit
Michael Barton wrote:
On Mar 7, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Helena Mitasova wrote:
There is no question that the default should be kept negative,
although checking whether the result
is correct would not hurt - we can look at it with our Panama
experiments, others using
r.watershed could provide som
On Mar 7, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Helena Mitasova wrote:
There is no question that the default should be kept negative,
although checking whether the result
is correct would not hurt - we can look at it with our Panama
experiments, others using
r.watershed could provide some helpful feedback too
There is no question that the default should be kept negative,
although checking whether the result
is correct would not hurt - we can look at it with our Panama
experiments, others using
r.watershed could provide some helpful feedback too.
But adding a flag to keep values positive actually m
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:18 AM, GRASS GIS wrote:
> #518: negative flow accumulation with r.watershed SFD or MFD
> --+-
> Reporter: dylan | Owner: grass-...@lists.osgeo.org
> Type: enhancement | Sta
Michael Barton wrote:
A much more direct way is to give a warning for each problematic
basin in the output:
WARNING: part of basin XX extends beyond region extent; accumulation
values may be too low.
IMHO not very practical. When thousands of basins are calculated, you
would get flooded wi
Thanks for the ideas and response Markus. See below.
On Mar 6, 2009, at 8:48 AM, Markus Metz wrote:
Michael Barton wrote:
Comment (by mmetz):
There is a good reason *not* to add this option/flag, nicely
illustrated
by Dylan creating this ticket. The purpose of negative
accumulation val
Michael Barton wrote:
Comment (by mmetz):
There is a good reason *not* to add this option/flag, nicely illustrated
by Dylan creating this ticket. The purpose of negative accumulation
values
is to make people wonder what on earth is going here, then figure out
that
not the whole catchment
On Mar 6, 2009, at 3:09 AM, wrote:
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:18:38 -
From: "GRASS GIS"
Subject: [GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #518: negative flow accumulation
with r.watershed SFD or MFD
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Message-ID: <048.30fedfc30b8b5f67edb5ee82855f1
#518: negative flow accumulation with r.watershed SFD or MFD
--+-
Reporter: dylan| Owner: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major
#518: negative flow accumulation with r.watershed SFD or MFD
--+-
Reporter: dylan| Owner: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major
#518: negative flow accumulation with r.watershed SFD or MFD
--+-
Reporter: dylan| Owner: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major| Milesto
14 matches
Mail list logo
