-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 53
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
ID mismatch between depressions / regions in depressions_info #26
Comments
Can you also check the raster files to see if the IDs match? Sometimes the raster-to-vector conversion can cause the issue |
I have added the corresponding region and depression_id raster and they have identical IDs. Also none of the other raster files here have the value 143. So far I have never seen any pixel to shape conversion issues. The same with the depression which all got the ID 1 (See #23) |
Thanks for the feedback. I unterstand that by using SRTM data, I cannot expect too meaningful results, especially in flat lands like the example above (Netherlands). That is clear, and SRTM is only our fallback data. But I would still assume that the ID referencing should work correctly. Or would you say the correct ID reference between output pixels and the CSV is resolution dependant? PS: The data is in EPSG:4326 projection. To what degree does the projection play any role in your algorithm? |
Description
The following image shows the mismatch in the
depressions_info.csv
after executingThe
depressions_info.csv
references theregion_id 143
fordepression 163
while a look at the map show that actuallyregion 173
spatially matches thedepression 163
. I tested in another region and here everything was correct and the region/depression IDs matched as they should. I expect this to be a bug. Any other suggestions?PS: I attached the SRTM image to test srtm_dem.zip
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: