#1024 closed enhancement (fixed)
Let r.grow shrink raster
| Reported by: | cmbarton | Owned by: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 6.5.0 |
| Component: | Raster | Version: | svn-develbranch6 |
| Keywords: | r.grow | Cc: | |
| CPU: | All | Platform: | All |
Description
Grass can grow a raster, but there is no way to shrink a raster except to completely thin it. If r.grow could accept values less than 1.0, this could be accomplished.
That is, if you put in a value of 0.8, the raster would shrink by 20%. Is this feasible given the code of r.grow?
Michael
Change History (6)
follow-up: 2 comment:1 by , 14 years ago
| Keywords: | r.grow added |
|---|
follow-up: 3 comment:2 by , 14 years ago
Replying to hamish:
example on how to shrink maps added to the r.grow man page in r41617. I guess you could wrap that in a script called r.shrink if you really wanted to.
Guess I don't have the latest build on this (mine is a few weeks old now). Is this on the web now?
btw, radius=1 is growing 1 cell outward. radius=0.5 is growing 1/2 a cell outward (which is still outward). radius=0 is the status quo, and radius=-xx would be inward in your proposal. it's a distance not a multiplier.
Oh. OK.
Michael
Hamish
comment:3 by , 14 years ago
Replying to cmbarton:
Guess I don't have the latest build on this (mine is a few weeks old now).
I just added it after reading your request and noticing that the method wasn't documented anywhere.
Is this on the web now?
AFAIR that's done weekly as part of the binary snapshot (Sat. nights). Just click on the rev number in the trac response to see the diff.
Hamish
comment:4 by , 11 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
instructions how to do it added to the help page in r41617. closing ticket.
example on how to shrink maps added to the r.grow man page in r41617. I guess you could wrap that in a script called r.shrink if you really wanted to.
btw, radius=1 is growing 1 cell outward. radius=0.5 is growing 1/2 a cell outward (which is still outward). radius=0 is the status quo, and radius=-xx would be inward in your proposal. it's a distance not a multiplier.
Hamish