Ok thanks. Maybe by hand is really the easiest solution.<br><br>Thank you<br><br>Laura<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/3/27 Moritz Lennert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mlennert@club.worldonline.be">mlennert@club.worldonline.be</a>></span><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="im">On 27/03/09 13:05, Laura Poggio wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I will then try to upgrade the version of GRASS, but in the meantime just a question.<br>
<br>
All the files I will work on have the same projection as the location, at least according to gdal and using EPSG codes.<br>
If I create the location with the problems discussed until now and then import the files with -o option, would this be source of troubles for further elaborations such as watershed analysis?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I don't think so. But you might want to try to create a "correct" location with all the parameters, including datum, etc. You might have to do this by hand though, i.e. using the option to create the location with projection parameters, instead of EPSG code or existing file.<br>
<font color="#888888">
<br>
Moritz<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>