I don't understand what you want to do here.
Image the following use case:
You have project location.
Then you would like to test out some new processing workflows or
developed a new methodology.
In order not to pollute the project location with a lot of test rasters,
you start a new location to do the testing.
It would be nice to have the save region settings available for /all/
locations with the same projection.
If you are trying to use a region defined in one location within another
location, you can do that--at your own risk. Just copy the region def
file from location1/mapset1 to location2/mapset2.
What is wrong with making the files in
location1/PERMANENT/windows
available to all locations with the same project in the GRASS database?
The region settings do not contain projection information.
This may be changed in GRASS 7. Then, the GUI could show a list of
region settings with the same projection when zooming to a saveed region
setting.
There may be many users (regional government offices, unis with studies
in their neighborhood) how may also want this kind of sharing feature.
This could increase usability of the map display in the GUI.
The work the coders of the wxGUI did was a tremendous step towards this direction!
care. I know it can be annoying sometimes for people coming from other GIS programs, but GRASS has long had a philosophy of emphasizing the importance of accurate digital mapping and cartography--something that is probably tied to its primarily scientific, rather than commercial, development and use.
Commercial users do also need the best accuracies.
But they seem to have also a high focus on the usability and effectivity
of use when performing all day tasks.
And I cannot imagine that academia can affort wasting time in
long-winded workflows.
The location/mapset structure is an important aspect of maintaining that accuracy.
Please let's not start flame wars here and put efforts & creativity in a
concept on how to increase the usability and effectivity while
maintaining the great flexibility, accuracy and traceability of GRASS.
As I tell frustrated students, a GIS is not like a word processor or even a graphics program.
Although I, too, was initially turned off by this, I've become an increasingly strong supporter of this approach over time. Sometimes I even think that we would be better off to get away from all semblance of word processor and graphic programs in the UI in order to make users to think about GIS software differently.
The problem is that creating some simple polygons in Google Earth and
converting them to shapefiles via ogr2ogr gets you faster to a new layer
(e.g. for masking) than digitizing with traditional GIS programs.
Also, not geo-educated staff understands Geobrowser. And geographical
analysis often relys in interdisciplinary exchange.
Thanks for your views as experienced user.
Best regards,
Timmie