[GRASS-user] Displaying raster map resolution

   While trying to run r.flow grass tells me that the input DEM map has a
resolution different from the current one. I thought all maps in the source
location were re-projected using the target location so I don't why I get
this error message.

   Running g.region -p tells me the current region. Running r.info on the
elevation map tells me the number of cells and the source location, but not
the resolution. Sometimes I'll see the resolution as 1.0nnn and other times
as 0.99nnn. Could this be the incompatibility?

   Is there a way to query a single raster map for resolution?

TIA,

Rich

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Rich Shepard <rshepard@appl-ecosys.com> wrote:

  While trying to run r.flow grass tells me that the input DEM map has a
resolution different from the current one. I thought all maps in the source
location were re-projected using the target location so I don't why I get
this error message.

  Running g.region -p tells me the current region. Running r.info on the
elevation map tells me the number of cells and the source location, but not
the resolution. Sometimes I'll see the resolution as 1.0nnn and other times
as 0.99nnn. Could this be the incompatibility?

Likely. You may use this parameter of g.region:

   align=name
      Adjust region cells to cleanly align with this raster map

and hence run:

g.region align=elevation -p

  Is there a way to query a single raster map for resolution?

r.info shows the resolution of a raster map:

r.info elevation | grep Res
| N: 228500 S: 215000 Res: 10
| E: 645000 W: 630000 Res: 10

HTH,
Markus

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016, Markus Neteler wrote:

Likely. You may use this parameter of g.region:

  align=name
     Adjust region cells to cleanly align with this raster map

Markus,

   OK. I thought they were aligned automatically when re-projected.

and hence run:

g.region align=elevation -p

r.info shows the resolution of a raster map:

r.info elevation | grep Res
| N: 228500 S: 215000 Res: 10
| E: 645000 W: 630000 Res: 10

   Darn! I must have missed that each time I looked.

Thanks,

Rich