<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Paul Ramsey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pramsey@opengeo.org">pramsey@opengeo.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br><div class="im">
> - Is it illegal to have a point on the poles? From ptarray_check_geodetic()<br>
> in /liblwgeom/lwgeodetic.c<br>
><br>
> if ( pt.x < -180.0 || pt.y < -90.0 || pt.x > 180.0 || pt.y > 90.0 ) return<br>
> LW_FALSE;<br>
><br>
> It seems kind wierd that it is ok to have a polygon the circumnavigates the<br>
> pole, but not a point on the pole?<br>
<br>
</div>It is weird, and I cannot access my last year self to figure out WTF I<br>
was thinking doing strict less-than rather than less-than-equals. I<br>
think it's just going to have to change.<br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div><br>As I read it, that statement only returns false if y > 90.0 or y < -90.0; meaning that a point on the pole (exactly 90.0 or -90.0) would return true. Ergo, the stmt as is permits points on the poles. Am I missing something?<br>
</div>Bryce<br></div>