<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Least Cost Path Anomalies in ArcGIS Spatial Analyst Questions</title>
    <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-spatial-analyst-questions/least-cost-path-anomalies/m-p/134400#M11134</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;I have been running some least cost path analyses on manatee GPS telemetry data using ArcGIS 9.3.1.&amp;nbsp; The goal of this analysis is to create the shortest path between points without the path crossing land.&amp;nbsp; We have tried using a simple cost surface (with water given a low cost and land either given a high cost or set as no data), but we have found the results to be unsatisfactory.&amp;nbsp; The final paths often zigzag through an open water body, rather than taking a straight line path.&amp;nbsp; I have done some testing and have traced these anomalies to the cost backlink raster, which appears to have what I am calling �??chutes�?� where the path is forced to travel north-south or east-west for some distance.&amp;nbsp; This action skews the final path and results in a longer path than expected.&amp;nbsp; I have attached an image that represents the final path and the backlink raster used to create the path.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Additionally, we have tested more complicated or heterogeneous cost surfaces based on bathymetry layers to compare the results.&amp;nbsp; What we have found is that the more complicated the cost surface is, the less dependent the final path is on the backlink raster.&amp;nbsp; For our objective, a simple cost surface is the most appropriate.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Has anyone experienced similar problems using the least cost path?&amp;nbsp; I appreciate any suggestions you may have for working around this problem.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:52:29 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>StacieKoslovsky</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-09-14T13:52:29Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Least Cost Path Anomalies</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-spatial-analyst-questions/least-cost-path-anomalies/m-p/134400#M11134</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;I have been running some least cost path analyses on manatee GPS telemetry data using ArcGIS 9.3.1.&amp;nbsp; The goal of this analysis is to create the shortest path between points without the path crossing land.&amp;nbsp; We have tried using a simple cost surface (with water given a low cost and land either given a high cost or set as no data), but we have found the results to be unsatisfactory.&amp;nbsp; The final paths often zigzag through an open water body, rather than taking a straight line path.&amp;nbsp; I have done some testing and have traced these anomalies to the cost backlink raster, which appears to have what I am calling �??chutes�?� where the path is forced to travel north-south or east-west for some distance.&amp;nbsp; This action skews the final path and results in a longer path than expected.&amp;nbsp; I have attached an image that represents the final path and the backlink raster used to create the path.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Additionally, we have tested more complicated or heterogeneous cost surfaces based on bathymetry layers to compare the results.&amp;nbsp; What we have found is that the more complicated the cost surface is, the less dependent the final path is on the backlink raster.&amp;nbsp; For our objective, a simple cost surface is the most appropriate.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Has anyone experienced similar problems using the least cost path?&amp;nbsp; I appreciate any suggestions you may have for working around this problem.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:52:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-spatial-analyst-questions/least-cost-path-anomalies/m-p/134400#M11134</guid>
      <dc:creator>StacieKoslovsky</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-09-14T13:52:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

