-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Number of areas with a specific site density not working #14
Comments
Maybe delete / or not count polygon part that have an area equal to the cell size (your_grid_spacing, Pixel size). |
I think if we delete or not count polygon parts that have an area equal to cell size, we will loose (maybe) too much information. There will be still some errors and we could delete these remaining errors. I have implemented this function. What do you think? |
Regarding the performance of the merge process: I have tried an alternative: `sample <- isoline_polygons x <- your_isoline_steps[-1] for (i in seq(1:(length(your_isoline_steps)-1))){ st <- isoline_polygons[c(rep(seq(1,iso_n),seq(iso_n,1))),] isoline_polygons_merge_test <- raster::aggregate(st, by="x") but your first approached performed much better: |
I am not sure if it solves the Problem.
When I run the script isoline_merged only has 60 objects as it is the case for isoline polygons |
Playing with my Rössen data, I have recognized that the grid spacing also affect this problem. If a grid with a very fine grid spacing is chosen this problem does not occur. |
In my opinion experimental parts like "Merge polygons" should be moved to a fork and once they are ready can be merged with master. Would that be okay? This is of course not a very urgent issue, but every time i run "01_kriging.R" it takes ages because of "Merge polygons" or I have to comment it out. |
I have revised the "Merge Polygons" Function. It is a bit faster now. Number of Polygons is the same as before. Please review if you got the time. |
I like your new update on "Merge Polygon". Introducing the possibility of using it or not was exactly what I was thinking about! I, however, prefer to use it and I would always recommend to use it! |
The calculation of the number of areas with a specific site density does not work in the right way:
The area marked in the picture counts as 4 areas. I think they should count as one.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: