<div dir="ltr">Hi Helli, <div><br></div><div>Yes, if you want the global map the -a flag plus the relaxed conditions for the extent of global maps are fine... </div><div><br></div><div>However, I wanted to also only import the region i'm working on and make use of the -r flag in r.in.gdal... then the problems start... no combination of -a, raster or align parameters in r.region give me the correct region (either the resolution is wrong or the extent). My solution so far is import the global map with r.in.gdal -a, then use r.mapcalc to get the region I need... any other suggestion about better workflow is more than welcome :)</div><div><br></div><div>best, </div><div>Vero</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-05-02 21:45 GMT+02:00 Helmut Kudrnovsky <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hellik@web.de" target="_blank">hellik@web.de</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Veronica Andreo wrote<br>
<span class="">> Hi :)<br>
><br>
> JFYI, CHELSA v1.2 is out<br>
><br>
</span>> 2017-02-07 15:43 GMT+01:00 Markus Neteler <<br>
<br>
> neteler@<br>
<br>
> >:<br>
<span class="">><br>
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Markus Metz<br>
</span>>> <<br>
<br>
> markus.metz.giswork@<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
> > wrote:<br>
>> [...]<br>
>> > Compared to GMTED, CHELSA extents further south to 90:0:0.5S which<br>
>> conforms<br>
>> > to the GMTED grid geometry. For CHELSA, however gdalinfo reports<br>
>> > Pixel Size = (0.008333333300000,-0.<wbr>008333333300000)<br>
>> > while for GMTED, gdalinfo reports<br>
>> > Pixel Size = (0.008333333333333,-0.<wbr>008333333333333)<br>
>> ><br>
>> > The reason for the slightly smaller pixel size is most probably reduced<br>
>> > floating point precision during creation of the CHELSA data.<br>
>><br>
>> from personal comm.:<br>
>> They are currently investigating where the precision is cut in their<br>
>> workflow (the upcoming V1.2 shall come with a related correction).<br>
>><br>
><br>
> Unfortunately they have not corrected the precision issue...<br>
><br>
> gdalinfo CHELSA_temp_2_1979-2013_V1.2_<wbr>land.tif<br>
> Driver: GTiff/GeoTIFF<br>
> Files: CHELSA_temp_2_1979-2013_V1.2_<wbr>land.tif<br>
> Size is 43200, 20880<br>
> [...]<br>
> Origin = (-180.000138888850017,83.<wbr>999860415150010)<br>
> Pixel Size = (0.008333333300000,-0.<wbr>008333333300000)<br>
><br>
> Corner Coordinates:<br>
> Upper Left (-180.0001389, 83.9998604) (180d 0' 0.50"W, 83d59'59.50"N)<br>
> Lower Left (-180.0001389, -90.0001389) (180d 0' 0.50"W, 90d 0' 0.50"S)<br>
> Upper Right ( 179.9998597, 83.9998604) (179d59'59.49"E, 83d59'59.50"N)<br>
> Lower Right ( 179.9998597, -90.0001389) (179d59'59.49"E, 90d 0' 0.50"S)<br>
> Center ( -0.0001396, -3.0001392) ( 0d 0' 0.50"W, 3d 0' 0.50"S)<br>
> Band 1 Block=43200x1 Type=Float32, ColorInterp=Gray<br>
> NoData Value=-99999<br>
><br>
> best,<br>
> Vero<br>
<br>
</div></div>yes, AFAIK they're still working on it.<br>
<br>
tested here ver.1.2 with r.in.gdal trunk and<br>
<br>
-a<br>
Auto-adjustment for lat/lon<br>
Attempt to fix small precision errors in resolution and extents<br>
<br>
it seems to give good results.<br>
<span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----<br>
best regards<br>
Helmut<br>
--<br>
</span>View this message in context: <a href="http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/CHELSA-climate-data-set-tp5284115p5319124.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.<wbr>nabble.com/CHELSA-climate-<wbr>data-set-tp5284115p5319124.<wbr>html</a><br>
<span class="im HOEnZb">Sent from the Grass - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
grass-user mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:grass-user@lists.osgeo.org">grass-user@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/grass-user</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>