[GRASS-user] r.profile fails to print elevation
sedwards2 at cinci.rr.com
Mon Jun 8 04:37:32 PDT 2015
Thanks for the quick response. Of course, the data are in the specified file....... When I saw the screen output with the 'Elevation' header and no elevations, I assumed the operation had failed. Looks like it terminated early though - I have about 7 miles of data from a 200 mile profile - are there any known limits on the length / resolution that can be handled? I'll run it again and see what happens.
> On Jun 7, 2015, at 12:17 PM, Anna Petrášová <kratochanna at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Stuart Edwards <sedwards2 at cinci.rr.com <mailto:sedwards2 at cinci.rr.com>> wrote:
> Hi -
> Great to see that r.profile is now working so well - at least in interactive mode through the wxgui profile tool. However, I'm having problems using r.profile directly where I use a table of vector points to define the profile. r.profile reads the vector file and computes the transect lengths, but does not appear to query the raster map at each point - or if it does, the results are not printed. Interactively, the raster map (DEM) works well as the subject map for analysis. Here's what is returned from r.profile:
> r.profile input=DEM at mymaps output=profilepoints.csv file=pipe_sp.csv resolution=10 units=feet
> Using resolution: 32.8084 [feet]
> Output columns:
> Along track dist. [feet], Elevation
> Approx. transect length: 951.007507 [feet]
> Approx. transect length: 1598.138340 [feet]
> Approx. transect length: 709.834684 [feet]
> Approx. transect length: 2040.197805 [feet]
> Approx. transect length: 113.646183 [feet]
> Approx. transect length: 259.883910 [feet]
> Approx. transect length: 333.752161 [feet]
> Approx. transect length: 871.612186 [feet]
> You specified output file, so the profile elevation should be written into that file profilepoints.csv. The rest of the output you see are only messages. If you don't specify output parameter, you get the entire profile on the standard output.
> a minor problem is that even when the units are specified as 'feet', the resolution is read as 'meters'. Easy to work around - but could be confusing if not noticed.
> thanks for noticing, I will look into it
> Any assistance much appreciated.
> GRASS 7.0.0 64 bit 2015-01-20 (Barton Binaries)
> Mac OS X 10.10.3
> MacBookPro 2014
> grass-user mailing list
> grass-user at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:grass-user at lists.osgeo.org>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the grass-user