Hi all,
v.rast.stats tries to disable MASK before doing statistics, what is a
reason for that? BTW, in r66421 I fixed issue when MASK is not located
in the current mapset (and cannot be disabled).
Martin
--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
v.rast.stats tries to disable MASK before doing statistics, what is a
reason for that?
Apparently I was the original author 
but I don't remember any reason.
Maybe it was a workaround a different problem back in Aug 2005....?
Markus
On 06/10/15 16:11, Martin Landa wrote:
Hi all,
v.rast.stats tries to disable MASK before doing statistics, what is a
reason for that? BTW, in r66421 I fixed issue when MASK is not located
in the current mapset (and cannot be disabled).
Just intrigued by this: I though the mask is mapset based, so how you can you have an active mask in a mapset that is not defined within that mapset ?
Moritz
On 06/10/15 16:11, Martin Landa wrote:
Hi all,
v.rast.stats tries to disable MASK before doing statistics, what is a
reason for that?
I would guess that in most cases, users want the info of v.rast.stats for all of their vector map and taking into account the mask might lead to counter-intuitive results (and you wouldn't easily know for which vector features the mask had an influence or not.
I agree that this possibly needs a flag to enable the mask for power users, but I would keep no-mask as the default.
Moritz
2015-10-06 17:32 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert <mlennert@club.worldonline.be>:
Just intrigued by this: I though the mask is mapset based, so how you can
you have an active mask in a mapset that is not defined within that mapset ?
yes, mask is mapset based. The problem is that `v.rast.stats` checks
first MASK raster map in the search path (not only in the current
mapset). Ma
--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
On 06/10/15 17:46, Martin Landa wrote:
2015-10-06 17:32 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert <mlennert@club.worldonline.be>:
Just intrigued by this: I though the mask is mapset based, so how you can
you have an active mask in a mapset that is not defined within that mapset ?yes, mask is mapset based. The problem is that `v.rast.stats` checks
first MASK raster map in the search path (not only in the current
mapset). Ma
But this was a bug that you fixed in r66421, or ?
Moritz
2015-10-06 18:13 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert <mlennert@club.worldonline.be>:
But this was a bug that you fixed in r66421, or ?
yes, it was. I was just wondering why the module should ignore the
mask. It was answered. Martin
--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
This definitely needs a flag + explanation in documentation.
Taking into account philosophy behind GRASS raster processing, I would
say - default should be to apply MASK, as MASK affects all raster
reading operations (unless stated otherwise or requested by user).
Maris.
2015-10-06 19:15 GMT+03:00 Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com>:
2015-10-06 18:13 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert <mlennert@club.worldonline.be>:
But this was a bug that you fixed in r66421, or ?
yes, it was. I was just wondering why the module should ignore the
mask. It was answered. Martin--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Hi,
2015-10-07 7:05 GMT+02:00 Maris Nartiss <maris.gis@gmail.com>:
This definitely needs a flag + explanation in documentation.
Taking into account philosophy behind GRASS raster processing, I would
say - default should be to apply MASK, as MASK affects all raster
reading operations (unless stated otherwise or requested by user).
+1 Ma
--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
+1 Agree. I’ve run into this before
Doug
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Maris Nartiss <maris.gis@gmail.com> wrote:
This definitely needs a flag + explanation in documentation.
Taking into account philosophy behind GRASS raster processing, I would
say - default should be to apply MASK, as MASK affects all raster
reading operations (unless stated otherwise or requested by user).Maris.
2015-10-06 19:15 GMT+03:00 Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com>:
2015-10-06 18:13 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert <mlennert@club.worldonline.be>:
But this was a bug that you fixed in r66421, or ?
yes, it was. I was just wondering why the module should ignore the
mask. It was answered. Martin–
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
–
The opinions I express are my own and are not representative of the official policy of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service or Dept. of the Interior. Life is too short for undocumented, proprietary data formats. As a federal employee, my email may be subject to FOIA request.
Hi,
sorry I jumped so late into this discussion, but I think we can just remove any mask related code in v.rast.stats - it’s apparently leftover from
https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/changeset/44444/
It used mask in the past, but now it uses r.univar zones instead.
Anna
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Newcomb, Doug <doug_newcomb@fws.gov> wrote:
+1 Agree. I’ve run into this before
Doug
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Maris Nartiss <maris.gis@gmail.com> wrote:
This definitely needs a flag + explanation in documentation.
Taking into account philosophy behind GRASS raster processing, I would
say - default should be to apply MASK, as MASK affects all raster
reading operations (unless stated otherwise or requested by user).Maris.
2015-10-06 19:15 GMT+03:00 Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com>:
2015-10-06 18:13 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert <mlennert@club.worldonline.be>:
But this was a bug that you fixed in r66421, or ?
yes, it was. I was just wondering why the module should ignore the
mask. It was answered. Martin–
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
–
The opinions I express are my own and are not representative of the official policy of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service or Dept. of the Interior. Life is too short for undocumented, proprietary data formats. As a federal employee, my email may be subject to FOIA request.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Anna Petrášová <kratochanna@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
sorry I jumped so late into this discussion, but I think we can just remove
any mask related code in v.rast.stats - it's apparently leftover from
https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/changeset/44444/It used mask in the past, but now it uses r.univar zones instead.
This is still open, right?
Markus
I think r66421 should be backported and as for the mask, the related code can be removed in my opinion.
Anna
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:40 AM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Anna Petrášová <kratochanna@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
sorry I jumped so late into this discussion, but I think we can just remove
any mask related code in v.rast.stats - it’s apparently leftover from
https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/changeset/44444/It used mask in the past, but now it uses r.univar zones instead.
This is still open, right?
Markus
Hi,
2015-12-29 15:03 GMT+01:00 Anna Petrášová <kratochanna@gmail.com>:
I think r66421 should be backported and as for the mask, the related code
done in r67421.
can be removed in my opinion.
no objection. Ma
--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi,
2015-12-29 15:03 GMT+01:00 Anna Petrášová <kratochanna@gmail.com>:
> I think r66421 should be backported and as for the mask, the related
codedone in r67421.
> can be removed in my opinion.
no objection. Ma
I removed it but I don't plan to backport it for 7.0.3
Anna
--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
2015-12-31 16:17 GMT+01:00 Anna Petrášová <kratochanna@gmail.com>:
I removed it but I don't plan to backport it for 7.0.3
probably we could plan for 7.0.4? Ma
--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com>
wrote:
2015-12-31 16:17 GMT+01:00 Anna Petrášová <kratochanna@gmail.com>:
> I removed it but I don't plan to backport it for 7.0.3probably we could plan for 7.0.4? Ma
already there:
https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/Grass7Planning
--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa