Closed amoodie closed 3 years ago
Agreed. I think I originally forbade avulsing into an existing channel to favor a simpler channel network. But in nature, avulsion into existing (perhaps abandoned) channels is often favorable. So you can go ahead and remove that constraint.
Here's the related passage from Sun et al. (2002): "If the space between the avulsion site and the channel convergence site is one cell ... a direct link can then be formed from the avulsion site to the channel convergence site."
@amoodie ready to close this issue?
No I actually missed fixing that in #28. I guess channel cells are still set as NaN in the latest branch.
I'll fix it and send a small PR now.
Consider this situation:
Cell (3, 43) is set up for an avulsion, with both cells (2, 43) and (4, 44) have slopes steeper than the current path and slope to (2, 43) > to (4, 44). But, in
avulsionCheck
here we prevent avulsions from going into channel cells, so the avulsion goes to cell (4, 44).Does this seem conceptually correct to you? I don't think there's a conceptual reason the avulsion shouldn't be allowed to go into cell (2, 43).
Thoughts?