Problem with r.cost?
Jianping Xu
jianp at mountain.rutgers.edu
Mon Nov 1 13:34:35 EST 1993
>
> Hello Grassers,
> Does anyone know why r.cost is behaving so much differently in 4.1 than
> in 4.0. The manual entry in 4.0 makes sense, but after using 4.1 r.cost,
Several reasons:
1. 4.0 r.cost figures the cumulative_cost for a to_cell by simply adding
its cost to the from_cell's; while 4.1 r.cost does it
by adding the average_cost of the 'from' and 'to' cells to the
from_cell's cumulative_cost.
2. *Absolute* cell resolutions are taken into accout by 4.0 r.cost
('normalized' to 100m), not by 4.1 r.cost.
3. 4.1 r.cost takes more 'neighboring' cells into accout as your
request, while 4.0 r.cost doesn't. And ...
Jianping Xu
jianp at ocean.rutgers.edu
> I get this result (from the Spearfish data set):
>
>
> r.cost in=slope.sm ou=slope.sm.cost coor=594455,4915055
>
>
> slope.sm
>
> north: 4915190
> south: 4914890
> east: 594590
> west: 594290
> rows: 10
> cols: 10
> 30 30 26 25 27 25 22 12 9 22
> 32 31 26 23 22 17 10 11 21 30
> 33 30 25 19 14 6 14 22 29 35
> 30 27 22 13 3 12 21 27 33 36
> 25 25 15 5 13 22 26 28 32 34
> 23 23 9 15 22 27 27 27 30 31
> 23 20 7 18 22 26 25 26 28 29
> 27 23 5 17 20 22 21 23 24 24
> 29 27 13 13 21 24 23 21 20 22
> 28 28 23 8 16 24 27 28 26 26
>
>
> slope.sm.cost
>
> 135 105 87 76 67 57 51 51 60 75
> 123 92 65 52 44 36 35 46 62 87
> 105 79 53 33 26 24 34 52 74 101
> 92 63 42 26 18 17 30 54 84 119
> 78 53 33 23 18 0 24 51 81 114
> 72 49 33 33 31 25 35 61 90 120
> 75 54 41 50 53 51 61 72 99 128
> 86 61 47 58 74 75 84 95 107 131
> 98 70 56 60 77 98 106 113 125 140
> 109 85 74 70 80 100 126 138 147 158
>
> Any help is appreciated.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rick Thompson- Research Assistant E-mail: rick at cast.uark.edu
> Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies Telephone: (501) 575-5736
> Ozark Hall Rm. 12 Fax: 575-3846
> University of Arkansas
> Fayetteville, AR 72701
>
More information about the grass-user
mailing list