Hi,
In 99 % of what I do, treating nodata in any other way than a data mask would
be severely detrimental to my results. This would include OR and AND. (The
scientific equivalence of “Do you want it eat pizza or ‘I don’t know’? or Do
you want to eat pizza or nothing?” are two different valid qu
In fact I would always expect nodata. nodata is what it says: no data. How can
one calculate or generate new values with one unknown term. Especially in the
case of boolean.
Lets take an example from real life. You have the information of wet or not wet
area. In the case of wet you have to reduc
nodata + 1 = nodata
nodata * 1 = nodata
nodata AND 1 = nodata
nodata OR 1 = 1
nodata + 0 = nodata
nodata * 0 = nodata
nodata AND 0 = 0
nodata OR 0 = nodata
Håvard
On 11. feb. 2019 09:47, st_kie...@web.de wrote:
I absolutely agree.
For the Discussion. nodata is a valuable information, and is g
I absolutely agree.
For the Discussion. nodata is a valuable information, and is getting lost when
dealing as desired value. Although the OR part needs more Discussion. For
consistency that has to be nodata as well. What about nodata OR 0? In my
opinion nodata always needs a discrete treatment
On 11/02/2019 10:42, Tim Sutton wrote:
Hi
On 11 Feb 2019, at 10:38, Havard Tveite
wrote:
nodata + 1 = nodata
nodata * 1 = nodata
nodata AND 1 = nodata
I've thought that AND and OR are boolean operators and will produce TRUE
(1) or FALSE (0)
nodata + 1 = nodata
nodata * 1 = nodata
nodata AND 1 = 0 (false)
nodata OR 1 = 1 (true)
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Stefan Giese
Projektleiter/Consultant
***
Hi
> On 11 Feb 2019, at 10:38, Havard Tveite wrote:
>
> nodata + 1 = nodata
> nodata * 1 = nodata
> nodata AND 1 = nodata
> nodata OR 1 = 1
Hmm yes, the OR case should return one!
Regards
Tim
---
Tim Sutton
t...@qgis.org
___
Qgis-user
nodata + 1 = nodata
nodata * 1 = nodata
nodata AND 1 = nodata
nodata OR 1 = 1
Håvard
On 11. feb. 2019 03:11, Nyall Dawson wrote:
Hey all,
I'm seeking some feedback on whether our current handling of nodata
pixels in the raster calculator is correct, or (my suspicion) annoying
and limiting.
Cu
On 2/10/2019 7:11 PM, Nyall Dawson wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I'm seeking some feedback on whether our current handling of nodata
> pixels in the raster calculator is correct, or (my suspicion) annoying
> and limiting.
>
> Currently, we treat nodata pixels the same as a "NULL" value in SQL --
> so ANY f
Hey all,
I'm seeking some feedback on whether our current handling of nodata
pixels in the raster calculator is correct, or (my suspicion) annoying
and limiting.
Currently, we treat nodata pixels the same as a "NULL" value in SQL --
so ANY function or operation with nodata as an input results in
10 matches
Mail list logo