Cell equivalent in vector context about vectormetrics HOT 10 CLOSED

Can you elaborate on this a bit more?

from vectormetrics.

In the raster context we have cells as spatial units, which are lacking in the vector context.
However, a polygon is compromised of an area which has an indefinite amount of spatial locations and hence properties (e.g. distance to polygon border).

How would I refer to such a spatial unit? My thought was location ...

See here for details:
https://github.com/marcosci/vectormetrics/blob/master/R/vm_p_core.R

... and in comparison:
https://github.com/r-spatialecology/landscapemetrics/blob/master/R/lsm_p_core.R

from vectormetrics.

Wouldn't it be enough in the above example to speak about core area ?

CORE is a 'Core area metric' and equals the area within a patch that is not on the edge of it. Core area is defined as all areas within a patch that are further away from the edge than a certain threshold. It describes patch area and shape simultaneously (more core area when the patch is large and the shape is rather compact, i.e. a square).

from vectormetrics.

"Distance from the patch edge" - isn't this not enough?

from vectormetrics.

Since cell pops up everywhere I think we should definitely find a common ground for a term here, the above was just an example :-)

from vectormetrics.

Frankly, I do not think we can find it. Raster representation shares some properties with vector representation, but, in the same time, is very different.

For example - you can reproject a vector without changing its values, but you cannot reproject a raster without changing its values.

from vectormetrics.

I also don't fully agree we need to come up with a term. Just because we use it quite often in the raster context this does not imply that we also need one for vector data. Even though maybe used for the same purposes, the data formats are different. Why not highlight these differents, rather than trying to find an artificial common ground?

from vectormetrics.

Totally agree @mhesselbarth.
If somebody wants to calculate standard (raster) metrics, they just could rasterize some polygons and get a result. However, due to the differences between rasters and vectors, different metrics for vectors can be calculated. We should focus (mostly) on the new/other things that can be done only on vectors.

from vectormetrics.

Which actually wasn't the idea of the package. The idea was to have the same functionality of landscapemetrics for vectors - so, no focus on things that can only be done on vectors (which are certainly a nice bonus, but not the core idea).

And I still think there is a need for a term for the inside of a polygon (which is also a common operation on polygons, so there must be something out there) - let alone to write the documentation of the neighboring, distance or adjacency functions and explain what is happening there. The term is definitely needed to highlight the different properties of the inside of a polygon, but let's see what pops up while finishing the package.

from vectormetrics.

(the inside of a polygon is known as "polygon's interior" or "polygon's body")

from vectormetrics.