<html style="direction: ltr;">
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body style="direction: ltr;" smarttemplateinserted="true"
bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div id="smartTemplate4-template">
<div id="my_message" style="color:blue; "> <br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
I also noticed that r.stream.extract finds different flow-paths than
r.watershed, which complicates comparisons between the two. The
work-around for this is to use a mask to force r.stream.extract to
find the flow-path you want.
<blockquote
cite="mid:1fc3a2de-972d-fd1c-9b8d-6b841312f723@arava.co.il"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAG+h=FGnAOkPJsOWbLj1bh_bMG3c2GFsdeW=pOQNtYxrDteHKQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
<pre wrap="">r.stream.extract is the preferred stream extraction tool.</pre>
</blockquote>
OK, but a flow accum raster is required for running r.stream.order
(which outputs flow_accum) and AFAIK, the only way to get a
flow_accum raster is with r.watershed.<br>
??<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>
BTW, I'm not the only one who has encountered this:</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/201118/how-to-obtain-accumulation-map-from-r-stream-extract">http://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/201118/how-to-obtain-accumulation-map-from-r-stream-extract</a><br>
</p>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1fc3a2de-972d-fd1c-9b8d-6b841312f723@arava.co.il"
type="cite"> Best,<br>
Micha<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAG+h=FGnAOkPJsOWbLj1bh_bMG3c2GFsdeW=pOQNtYxrDteHKQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>