DEM再調整のためのStreamベクター

AlexanderVentura

<\/HEAD>

こんにちは、<\/P>

<\/P>

DEM再調整を使用して焼き込みたいStreamフィーチャクラスがあります。<\/P>

<\/P>

気になっているのは、フィーチャクラスに特定の要件があるかどうかです。 <\/P>

<\/P>

すべてのStreamはDEMを出るかシンクに終わるべきだと知っていますが、本当に重要な他に考慮すべきことはありますか？擬似ノードは削除し、ジオメトリをチェックするべきだと読みました。 <\/P>

<\/P>

私は本当に流域を描くことにだけ興味があり（これ以上の複雑な分析は計画していません）。<\/P>

<\/P>

どんな提案でも本当に感謝します。<\/P>

<\/P>

どうもありがとうございます！<\/P>

<\/P>

Alex<\/P><\/BODY><\/HTML>

AlexanderVentura

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your answer.

Actually I’m not getting unexpected result, just want to make sure I’m following “best practice” or at least not making serious mistakes. But if all streams get burnt in and have the values I expect it should be fine right? 

My stream feature class is actually 2 separate ones that I merged into one and then use to burn in streams. The reason is I believe the 2 separate stream feature classes are for main and secondary streams. They are generated by the same national authority and in order to include all of the streams in my DEM reconditioning I merged them.

Also I am not clipping the streams to the raster extent as this way all my streams “exit” the DEM and won’t get refilled after burning in. Is that a problem and is it better to instead clip the stream feature class to raster extent and then extend the streams beyond the DEM manually (by editing streams)?

One last question if you don’t mind: my DEM raster has values (approx 0 meters) for the ocean. As many of my streams end up in the ocean I was thinking of converting the ocean polygon to raster and removing this from my DEM. This way all streams will exit the raster (and won’t get refill after burning) and I can add “coastal” catchments at the end of the terrain preprocessing to complete areas with missing catchments. This makes more sense to me than treating the ocean as a “sink”. 

Does this make sense to you?

Thanks again for the help.

Alex.