#2342: G7: deprecate r.los in favour of r.viewshed
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Reporter: neteler | Owner: grass-dev@…
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: 7.0.0
Component: Raster | Version: svn-releasebranch70
Keywords: r.los, r.viewshed | Platform: All
Cpu: Unspecified |
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Given the long term testing of r.viewshed, are there objections
to remove r.los from GRASS 7?
Here some related discussion from grass-dev:
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Hamish wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>> How does r.viewshed differ from r.los?
>
> basically it is faster and it scales to large regions well.
>
> I don't know the exact O()ness level of it, but r.los becomes very
quickly
> slower after the region size gets bigger than a smallish amount of rows
x
> columns, to the point where it becomes unusable.
...
>
> from the code header comments:
> * The viewshed algorithm is efficient both in
> * terms of CPU operations and I/O operations. It has worst-case
> * complexity O(n lg n) in the RAM model and O(sort(n)) in the
> * I/O-model. For the algorithm and all the other details see the
> * paper: "Computing Visibility on * Terrains in External Memory" by
> * Herman Haverkort, Laura Toma and Yi Zhuang.
#2342: G7: deprecate r.los in favour of r.viewshed
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Reporter: neteler | Owner: grass-dev@…
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: blocker | Milestone: 7.0.0
Component: Raster | Version: svn-releasebranch70
Keywords: r.los, r.viewshed | Platform: All
Cpu: Unspecified |
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Comment(by cmbarton):
To avoid confusion and duplication of modules, I'm in favor of replacing
r.los with r.viewshed. Then maybe we can do a cumulative view shed routine
in the near future.
#2342: G7: deprecate r.los in favour of r.viewshed
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Reporter: neteler | Owner: grass-dev@…
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: blocker | Milestone: 7.0.0
Component: Raster | Version: svn-releasebranch70
Keywords: r.los, r.viewshed | Platform: All
Cpu: Unspecified |
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Comment(by martinl):
Replying to [comment:2 cmbarton]:
> To avoid confusion and duplication of modules, I'm in favor of replacing
r.los with r.viewshed. Then maybe we can do a cumulative view shed routine
in the near future.
#2342: G7: deprecate r.los in favour of r.viewshed
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Reporter: neteler | Owner: grass-dev@…
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: blocker | Milestone: 7.0.0
Component: Raster | Version: svn-releasebranch70
Keywords: r.los, r.viewshed | Platform: All
Cpu: Unspecified |
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Comment(by martinl):
Replying to [comment:3 martinl]:
> Replying to [comment:2 cmbarton]:
> > To avoid confusion and duplication of modules, I'm in favor of
replacing r.los with r.viewshed. Then maybe we can do a cumulative view
shed routine in the near future.
>
> +1 (`r.los` can be moved to addons)
If no objections I will do it in the next few days.
#2342: G7: deprecate r.los in favour of r.viewshed
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Reporter: neteler | Owner: grass-dev@…
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: blocker | Milestone: 7.0.0
Component: Raster | Version: svn-releasebranch70
Keywords: r.los, r.viewshed | Platform: All
Cpu: Unspecified |
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Comment(by wenzeslaus):
Replying to [comment:4 martinl]:
> Replying to [comment:3 martinl]:
> > Replying to [comment:2 cmbarton]:
> > > To avoid confusion and duplication of modules, I'm in favor of
replacing r.los with r.viewshed. Then maybe we can do a cumulative view
shed routine in the near future.
> >
> > +1 (`r.los` can be moved to addons)
>
> If no objections I will do it in the next few days.
`r.los` moved to addons in r61899 (trunk) and r61901 (7.0). Manual pages
and toolboxes file changed too. Test which was using both moved to
`r.los`. I don't know about any other occurrences or `r.los` in trunk.
It is backported and I tested that `r.los` is no more there, so closing.