Timeline for Estimating resolution of vector data?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10, 2019 at 6:47 | answer | added | Sesu | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 21, 2017 at 23:17 | answer | added | Alex P | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 28, 2017 at 22:59 | history | edited | PolyGeo♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Jun 26, 2017 at 13:44 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackGIS/status/879334501226352640 | ||
| Jun 26, 2017 at 13:37 | comment | added | user30184 | And this blog considers 1 mm as smallest detectable size blogs.esri.com/esri/arcgis/2010/12/12/…. It would mean 5000 m at scale 1:5000000 (I dropped one zero from my comment above when writing). | |
| Jun 26, 2017 at 13:12 | comment | added | radouxju | @user30184 0.1 mm is quite optimistic, I would rather expect 0.3 mm | |
| Jun 26, 2017 at 12:59 | history | edited | user2821 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 31 characters in body
|
| Jun 26, 2017 at 12:59 | comment | added | user2821 | Yes, that would be the best case scenario. Unfortunately, I think my useful resolution is much lower as the polygons have rather sparse vertices and appear more angular than I would expect from natural, e.g. meteorological, data. I also don't have access to the original maps, I should mention. | |
| Jun 26, 2017 at 8:55 | comment | added | user30184 | I would say that at least vertices can only be accurate to 0.1 mm on the paper which means 500 m at scale 1:500000. Above that it may be very hard to say what is the effect of simplification and other factors especially if the original map was hand drawn. | |
| Jun 26, 2017 at 7:24 | history | edited | user2821 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 16 characters in body
|
| Jun 26, 2017 at 7:22 | history | edited | ahmadhanb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 12 characters in body
|
| Jun 26, 2017 at 7:20 | history | asked | user2821 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |