RoI calculation (in gridding routine) smear data too strongly, especially vs. z than vs. x and y (physically inconsistent) about pyart HOT 2 CLOSED

@isilber - is your suggestion here to change the defaults? Or change the underlying gridding routine?

I think the highlight some good points - a PR here would be more than welcome!! Thanks for raising this issue 👍

from pyart.

@mgrover1, Will do.
Wanted to lay the groundwork.
The first correction (RoI equation) is essential as it won't survive scrutiny, e.g., in case someone explicitly mentions the calculation in a peer-reviewed publication.
The second modification (default inputs) would make the default performance more faithful to the truth as demonstrated above (w/r/t radar resolution and the observed information). By default, the gridding routine uses the "Barnes2" weighting function, which delivers nice results, depending on those input parameters.
One can use the "Nearest" option to retain non-smeared radar data. Since "Nearest" also depends on RoI, yet the interpolated values only consider closest values (hence, no data smearing), we can add an optional input scaling factor to the RoI, specifically for that option, which will enable receiving more continuous results without any impact on the Barnes2 interpolation (e.g., a scaling factor of 2 will roughly produce the current default gridding output.

from pyart.