which holds more data raster or vector gis

#Which holds more data raster or vector gis series#

I'm wondering if that's the sort of thing that would suit raster analysis. When dealing with spatial data, depending on the particular characteristics of the type of information, it may be more appropriate to represent that information (at the logical level) using either a raster or a vector data model. Vectors are graphical representations of the real world. spatially joining points representing escapes to the 500m squares and then symbolising with darker colours for more escapes, that sort of thing. Vector and raster are common data formats used to store geospatial data. Raster data models excel in cases where the underlying data itself is continuous in nature, as there are significant gains in efficiency of storage and indexing owing to the regular. Both are highly useful, and the choice of which model works better is entirely task dependent.

#Which holds more data raster or vector gis series#

The vector model uses points and line segments to identify locations on the earth while the raster model uses a series of cells to represent. The raster data model is often contrasted with the vector data model. Each of these models has its own advantages and disadvantages. One thing I did was to look at statistics for gas escapes in terms of 500m square OS facets in polygon vector form - e.g. The old GIS adage raster is faster, but vector is corrector comes from the two different fundamental GIS models: vector and raster. I know that rasters are also used for stuff like elevation data but so far we've no need to take elevation into account in what I do. It's nearly all been vector stuff though, the only time really I have used rasters is to scan in old project plans and georeference them to our vector data. I've been working with ArcGIS seriously for nearly a year in my job and have learnt a huge amount in that time and been able to do some very cool and useful stuff for the company.