Hei,
Before investing time in getting r.terraflow to work on larger regions I actually tried r.fill.dir.
The problem is that the results are significantly different and those of r.terraflow and r.hydrodem (where no breaching is performed) are more suitable for my needs. Here, r.terraflow fills most, r.fill.dir least and r.hydrodem inbetween.
Here a little comparison based on NC data:
g.extension extension=r.hydrodem operation=add
g.region -p raster=elevation
r.fill.dir --overwrite --verbose input=elevation output=elevation_fill_dir_depressionless direction=elevation_fill_dir_direction areas=elevation_fill_dir_pas
r.hydrodem -a --overwrite input=elevation memory=5000 output=elevation_hydrodem_depressionless
r.terraflow --overwrite --verbose elevation=elevation filled=elevation_terraflow_depressionless memory=5000
for m in terraflow fill_dir hydrodem
do
r.mapcalc --o expression=“${m}effect=if((elevation${m}depressionless-elevation)>0,elevation${m}_depressionless-elevation,null())”
done
r.univar map=“terraflow_effect”
total null and non-null cells: 2025000
total null cells: 1901290
Of the non-null cells:
···
Fra: Markus Metz markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com
Sendt: fredag 14. juni 2019 14.25
Til: Stefan Blumentrath
Kopi: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
Emne: Re: [GRASS-dev] r.terraflow vs. r.hydrodem
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:23 PM Stefan Blumentrath <Stefan.Blumentrath@nina.no> wrote:
Hi,
While trying to make r.terraflow work with larger regions, I was wondering if it would be doable to add a flag to r.hydrodem that forces the module to perform only sink filling and no breaching / carving?
Sink filling is the function I need from r.terraflow but if it would be an option to add this function to r.hydrodem, that would be fine as well of course…
what about r.fill.dir? It should work as is with larger regions.
Markus M