New answers tagged

0

I might expect the results for area calculated in the projected space to be different from those using geographic coordinates. It just depends what areas the tool claim to compute. Consider the "square" whose corners are at the UTM coordinates 18n 528007 4467447 18n 528008 4467447 18n 528008 4467448 18n 528007 4467448 It might be plausible to ...


-1

Figured it out. Spatial Analyst Tools -> Neighborhood -> Focal Statistics


1

What you want is probably no raster in the classic way. (in a classic way you would have a band for each land use) Probably you want to use a polygon-raster, which is a feature class consisting of regular polygons (squares for example with 1 mile size). You can create it with the tool "Create Fishnet". After you have your polygon raster you use intersect on ...


1

I was able to reproduce this effect, although I had to end up using the code: !shape.area@squaremeters! I got the following results in my table, with both fields being identical like you stated: Reading into the help guide, it looks like it could be an issue with the fact that the "Calculate Geometry" tool lets you utilize the coordinate system that ...


2

Sorry I didn't realize the errors were in your image. The approaches that you have tried are correct, you just have an issue with the data. Try removing the m-values from whichever dataset is m-aware. While you're going through this process, I'd make the outputs the same projection/crs just to be safe. I always feel more comfortable with these types of ...


2

A newer version of ArcGIS solves the overlapping zones problem: https://blogs.esri.com/esri/arcgis/2013/11/26/new-spatial-analyst-supplemental-tools-v1-3/


2

This is happening because in your manual workflow your feature class has a different coordinate system than the data frame, so there is a transformation on-the-fly going on. However, in your automated workflow you are reprojecting the feature class and then calculating area. Depending on the shape & size of the polygon, and the location, these two ...


0

Since it hasn't been mentioned so far and it seems to be the right tool for exactly what you are trying to achieve: Aggregate Polygons Set the minimum_hole_size to the minimum size of a polygon hole you want to keep. Smaller ones will be eliminated. PS. The optional minimum_area value in the same tool does the same for the polygon parts that are not ...



Top 50 recent answers are included