Timeline for Reclasifing raster with raster calculator
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 2019 at 9:41 | vote | accept | Petr | ||
| Nov 26, 2019 at 9:38 | comment | added | Petr | It was just matter of the third cathegory. In all cathgegories the Ri and IP is calculated based on matrix of velocity*depth and depth. The IP i calculated from this matrix and Ri is calculated from IP. There is one more cathegory which only applies in one case which I dealt with already.To your question that you do not see the difference, its because the Ri values in the third cathegory were so small that they were omitted and instead was used only the IP condition which could be applied. To my understanding, the authors meant the third condition in the way that if Ri is too small then use IP | |
| Nov 22, 2019 at 0:44 | comment | added | Gabriel De Luca | I am sorry but I do not see the difference that could be achieved by removing the condition of Ri from the third category in the example, the same case should continue to fall into categories 2 and 3 at the same time, even other cases would become badly undefined (Ri = 0.2 , IP_Q = 1 in which category would go now?). Redefine your conditions in a way that is mutually exclusive. I proposed a new formulation as an answer, but I do not know your categories, you should be able to describe them in a better way considering all possible combinations of values. | |
| Nov 22, 2019 at 0:38 | answer | added | Gabriel De Luca | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 19, 2019 at 10:09 | comment | added | Petr | @GabrielDeLuca Very good point, thanks for that. I've check the data and such case is not occuring for 5yr, 20, yr and 100yr flooding event as the Ri value is calculted from IP. The IP stands for the fator of intensity of flood and the Ri stands for risk assessmet. The problem is for the 500yr flooding event, where the case that you are pointing to is occuring so I've used only the condition IP_Q>=2 from the 3rd category and the output now looks good. Thanks for help. | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 13:55 | comment | added | Gabriel De Luca | Conditions must be mutually exclusive. If a pixel has the following values: "Ri" = 0.05, "IP_Q" = 2; it fits in category 2 (because 0.01 <= Ri < 0.1) and fits in category 3 (because IP_Q >= 2). In wich category must it be? | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 7:57 | comment | added | Petr | @GabrielDeLuca I am not sure whether I got your point - I didnt get your mention Ri 0.05 and IP_Q 2, can you please be more specific in your answer? What do you think about the expression? Should it work or would you formulate it differently? | |
| Nov 16, 2019 at 3:32 | history | edited | PolyGeo♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 25 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Nov 15, 2019 at 18:27 | comment | added | Gabriel De Luca | More than one condition can be true at the same time. Equally 7 seems a very large number, but Ri 0.05, IP_Q 2 must return a 5. | |
| Nov 15, 2019 at 14:13 | history | edited | Erik |
edited tags
|
|
| Nov 15, 2019 at 14:08 | history | asked | Petr | CC BY-SA 4.0 |