I notice that the output of r.resamp.stats has its western-most raster
column set to all NULL. The other 3 borders seem to be ok. As the 30" data is without NULLs, and the target region is an exact multiple of the source region, it doesn't seem to be an inherent exceeding-the-border
effect. The propagate nulls flag was not used.
Besides losing data, when you zoom to look at the pacific it makes an
ugly white line along 180W.
I notice that the output of r.resamp.stats has its western-most raster
column set to all NULL. The other 3 borders seem to be ok. As the 30"
data is without NULLs, and the target region is an exact multiple of
the source region, it doesn't seem to be an inherent
exceeding-the-border effect. The propagate nulls flag was not used.
Can you come up with a recipe to reproduce this with the standard
example data sets?
> While running through this set of commands to resample from 30" to 2':
> http://grass.osgeo.org/wiki/Blue_Marble#Processing
>
> I notice that the output of r.resamp.stats has its western-most raster
> column set to all NULL. The other 3 borders seem to be ok. As the 30"
> data is without NULLs, and the target region is an exact multiple of
> the source region, it doesn't seem to be an inherent
> exceeding-the-border effect. The propagate nulls flag was not used.
Glynn:
Can you come up with a recipe to reproduce this with the
standard example data sets?
> > While running through this set of commands to resample from 30" to 2':
> > http://grass.osgeo.org/wiki/Blue_Marble#Processing
> >
> > I notice that the output of r.resamp.stats has its western-most raster
> > column set to all NULL. The other 3 borders seem to be ok. As the 30"
> > data is without NULLs, and the target region is an exact multiple of
> > the source region, it doesn't seem to be an inherent
> > exceeding-the-border effect. The propagate nulls flag was not used.
Glynn:
> Can you come up with a recipe to reproduce this with the
> standard example data sets?