Since a lake stores water, it sounds reasonable to consider it a depression. That is what I used on an internally drained watershed, and it worked well. <br><br>More or less a feature you determine will "hold water", and not overland flow. The other areas of all have flow characteristics (e.g. accumulation,direction).<br>
<br>Mark<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Georg Kaspar <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:georg@geofs.de">georg@geofs.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:20:36 -0500, M S wrote:<br>
<br>
> In short, r.watershed, without depression input, will route water in<br>
> and *up* and out of depressions in the terrain to illustrate the<br>
> complete downward path. This is why no DEM filling is necessary. By<br>
> entering in known (substantial and impactful) depressions, the water<br>
> does not route out of it.<br>
<br>
</div>But in my case, providing known depressions leads to areas of null()s<br>
around those depressions (lakes by the way).<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
grass-user mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:grass-user@lists.osgeo.org">grass-user@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>