-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
Closed
Description
Elimination
- Correct
SRID
of raster. The raster is in correctSRID
. Vector mask is transformed correctly from4326
to3857
, and vector- and raster mask yield same result. Also, all rasters aregdal_transformed
toSRID 3857
on import. - Correct
pixel scale
of raster. The x scale differ between the mask and the snow-rasters. - Calculation. Adding the
SCF_0.tif, SCF_160.tif, SCF_200.tif
yield correct graph calculations of respectively0%, 60%, 100%
, which means there's nothing wrong with the calc method itself.
- Include correct values in calculation. Values
100-200
are included, which has been thrice confirmed by Eirik. - Use
float
numbers. Still same results. - Confirm correct query:
select row_to_json(t) from (SELECT A.rid, pvc FROM ' + dataset.table_name + ' AS A, ' + mask_dataset_id + ' AS B, ST_ValueCount(A.rast,1) AS pvc WHERE st_intersects(A.rast, 1, B.rast, 1)) as t;
- IMPROVEMENT: Only use part of mask which have values > 0.
Darkest red line is with0
values of mask excluded, which in fact is an improvement. This shows that there indeed was something wrong with the mask (the whole raster mask was used). There is likely secondary error-sources at work here also.
- Vannmaske. Count the 20 values...
Suspicions
The difference between G—/Systemapic calcs is the least when there's most snow (ref. 20th Jan).
- If the mask was faulty (say, wrong SRID), then this would have the least effect when there's a lot of snow (with coverage going all the say to the coast, for example, and lots of area being 100%).
- So this perhaps indicates that there's something wrong - not with the calculation - but with the mask (or the watermask, perhaps).
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
No labels