werchowyna at epf.pl
Tue Feb 7 15:08:41 EST 2006
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:48:48 -0800
Brad Douglas <rez at touchofmadness.com> wrote:
> Is there a specific reason to keep r.region around? Is there a case
> where you want to have a specific raster in a different metric than
> the global?
I find r.region usefull to move my rasters within the location as
needed. Sometimes handy. I admit this can be achieved by other means
(r.out.tiff with tfw, adjust tfw, reimport), but it's not as
convenient. r.region is also neat for using the same MASK for different
rasters. And for quick georefferencing data which are already
rectified, but have no georefferencing (eg. lost .tfw) - again, could
craft a world file hand but r.region is quicker, for me.
> If so, why is there no v.region?
v.transform looks like r.region for vectors, although it's usage is
It would be cool if r.region could also move the raster by a given x,y
shift like v.transform does.
Just my thinking.
W polskim Internecie s? setki milion?w stron. My przekazujemy Tobie tylko najlepsze z nich!
More information about the grass-dev