Focal statistics problem values
Thank you Lance Cole and Dan Patterson for your response. As suggested I tried to compare the focal st. results ignoring the NODATA, but in both cases the values were bigger than the input raster (see fig. "FocalSt_IgnorNoData" stands for the Ignore NoData flagged option, contrary to "FocalSt_NoData").
For what concerns the holes/voids, I used the Fill tool. The output raster had bigger values (see fig.), I presumed because of the filling operation, but using the new output for the focal st. I noticed the same problem (see fig.).
I am just wondering now if the problem is since the raster file "ALS_Erwitte_geotif_05m.tif" was generated in CouldCompare using nearly 8 get-together tiles. Each tile was represented by a .csv containing the coordinates points of the entire area.
What do you think?
Thank you!
Concerning the "nodata value in the input rasters set", I meant the "ignore_nodata" set (optional) in the focal st. window tool.
Regarding the "...05.tif" file, it showed no nodata, as you can see in the fig.
Therefore, according to what you wrote the nodata lack in the input file ("...05.tif") may be the problem, at this point. In order to get a smoother surface, how could I solve this issue?
I wanted a smoother surface to use it as input for the least cost path analysis, in order to avoid that the process could take into account small and medium surface variations/modern structures (such as a street or a roundabout) during the path estimation.
I am afraid that, as you said, the 0 represents the nodata. Also in the histogram is reported the lowest value as 0 (see fig.). So the data has been stored like this, although not being at the sea level (it is an area of northern Germany).
