Handle over-180-degrees cells without treating edges as latlon-aligned #233
Labels
New: Feature
Highlight a new community raised "feature request" issue
Stale: Closed
This stale issue or pull-request has been closed due to no activity
Stale: Closure warning
This stale issue or pull-request has been marked for closure
Seeing comment here
While that statement is all very well, it is in that case simply not doing the same calculation.
So, suppose I have a cell with an edge that runs (-120, -30) to (+120, +30) : I might actually want that line to be on a great circle, and more especially if the boundaries are not generally along lines of latitude or longitude.
I can in principle achieve that by taking a different intermediate point, which lies on the GC instead of the 'straight latlon' line.
But obviously, this is not what the
resolution
keyword provides.In fact, this could occur any time a target may have cells which are "large" but not specially latlon-aligned, and it particular when their edges are supposed to be on GCs rather than some 'straight latlon' line.
In effect, this is due to the conflation of the "two problems" I mentioned in the above comment : that of handing overlarge cells, and of approximating 'straight latlon' boundary lines.
So "ideally", we could provide an additional keyword that controls whether the boundaries of over-large cells are divided along a latlon line, or on a GC.
E.G. a new key like
resolve_latlon=True
, for both GridToMeshESMFRegridder and MeshToGridESMFRegridderThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: