Opened 6 years ago

Closed 5 years ago

#2500 closed task (fixed)

r.surf.idw vs. r.surf.idw2

Reported by: martinl Owned by: grass-dev@…
Priority: blocker Milestone: 7.0.0
Component: Default Version: svn-trunk
Keywords: Cc:
CPU: Unspecified Platform: Unspecified

Description

Do we need the both modules in G7?

  • could they be merged?
  • or one of them moved to addons

Are there other candidates which could be moved to addons?

Change History (4)

comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by martinl

Any comments? Thanks.

comment:2 in reply to:  description ; Changed 5 years ago by annakrat

Replying to martinl:

Do we need the both modules in G7?

  • could they be merged?
  • or one of them moved to addons

Even if they could be merged, it would require some work and time. So based on the r.surf.idw manual page:

r.surf.idw will generally outperform r.surf.idw2 except when the input data layer
 contains few non-zero data, i.e. when the cost of the search exceeds
 the cost of the additional distance calculations performed by r.surf.idw2.
 The relative performance of these utilities will depend on the comparative
 speed of boolean, integer and floating point operations on a particular platform.

and r.surf.idw2 manual page:

Another surface generation program, named r.surf.idw,
 should be used with latitude/longitude data bases

I would move r.surf.idw2 to addons. But I don't think I was trying any of them.

comment:3 in reply to:  2 ; Changed 5 years ago by martinl

Replying to annakrat:

I would move r.surf.idw2 to addons. But I don't think I was trying any of them.

I would agree with you. Any objections?

comment:4 in reply to:  3 Changed 5 years ago by martinl

Resolution: fixed
Status: newclosed

Replying to martinl:

Replying to annakrat:

I would move r.surf.idw2 to addons. But I don't think I was trying any of them.

I would agree with you. Any objections?

done in r63510 and backported to relbr70 in r63511. Closing this ticket.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.