Feature request #10146
Add appropriate colour ramps to results of analyses
Status: | Closed | ||
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | Low | ||
Assignee: | - | ||
Category: | Processing/Core | ||
Pull Request or Patch supplied: | No | Resolution: | duplicate |
Easy fix?: | No | Copied to github as #: | 18604 |
Description
One of the many features I like a lot in GRASS is that an appropriate colour ramp is automatically applied to the results of analyses, when feasible and appropriate (e.g. greyscale for aspect, rainbow for slope, etc.).
Adding this to Processing seems simple, and it would add much to the readability of results.
Related issues
History
#1 Updated by Victor Olaya over 10 years ago
- Status changed from Open to Feedback
Do you know that you can set the rendering to use for the outputs of Processing? You can set a global one, and also a specific one for each algorithm.
Do you mean adding some symbology by default (now by defaut it does nothing)?
#2 Updated by Paolo Cavallini over 10 years ago
Yes, exactly.
#3 Updated by Giovanni Manghi over 9 years ago
- Category changed from 94 to Processing/Core
#4 Updated by Alexander Bruy almost 9 years ago
Hmm, how we can determine when and which colorramp to apply?
#5 Updated by Paolo Cavallini almost 9 years ago
The idea is to add the capability of adding one default ramp for each analysis, then decide which one is more appropriate for it.
See how GRASS does it: greyscale for aspect, coloured for slope, etc.
#6 Updated by Paolo Cavallini almost 8 years ago
Also useful for the recently added shortest path algs.
#7 Updated by Giovanni Manghi over 7 years ago
- Easy fix? set to No
#8 Updated by Alexander Bruy almost 7 years ago
- Related to Feature request #17961: Allow algorithms to set style and layer options for outputs added
#9 Updated by Paolo Cavallini over 6 years ago
- Description updated (diff)
- Assignee deleted (
Victor Olaya) - Priority changed from Normal to Low
#10 Updated by Paolo Cavallini over 6 years ago
- Resolution set to duplicate
- Status changed from Feedback to Closed
See #17961, more comprehensive