[postgis-users] [postgis-devel] Dropped DM (Time) dimensionwithintersections

Huntington, Margaret (US SSA) margaret.huntington at baesystems.com
Mon Oct 13 12:44:14 PDT 2008


Hello Regina,

 

I'm only performing st_expand and st_intersection on segments whose time
interval overlap another route's segment.  OK, you're correct.  I won't
find intersections on routes where they're two days apart.  An
exaggeration.  But if an aircraft stays within a route with the same
bearing for 30 minutes and there are 5 subsequent aircraft spaced at
5-minute intervals, all five will be returned with the st_intersection
function.  We're discussing the easy case.  What about an aircraft that
comes close or has intersecting paths that aren't utilizing the same
route?    If they intersect at the same x-,y-, z- component a minute or
so apart, there isn't an intersection; thus the reason I'd like a moving
bounding box.

 

Thanks for considering the issue,

Margie

  _____  

From: postgis-users-bounces at postgis.refractions.net
[mailto:postgis-users-bounces at postgis.refractions.net] On Behalf Of Obe,
Regina
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 1:14 PM
To: PostGIS Users Discussion; postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net
Subject: RE: [postgis-users] [postgis-devel] Dropped DM (Time)
dimensionwithintersections

 

Margie,

This may be a dumb question on my part, but why can't you keep track of
time separate from space with a datetime field and then use the numerous
functions in postgresql for doing datetime overlap comparisons combined
with spatial overlaps.

Thanks,
Regina


-----Original Message-----
From: postgis-users-bounces at postgis.refractions.net on behalf of Margie
Huntington
Sent: Mon 10/13/2008 2:08 PM
To: postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net
Subject: Re: [postgis-users] [postgis-devel] Dropped DM (Time)
dimensionwith intersections


I think there is a miscommunication.  I'm attempting to model moving
objects
in the database; specifically aircraft.  These aircraft have both an
altitude and time as well as the normal x- and y- components.  The
problem
is, I haven't found a function that will return time, the m-component.
(I
can determine altitude myself since the points are linear; thus, this
omission isn't as critical.)

I'd like to determine if aircraft maintain a safe distance from each
other.
I had hoped st_expand would model a moving bounding box; but it only
returns
an x-, y-geometry.   The st_zmflag is 0:


>From my perspective, a

    shorterSegment geometry;
    shorterSegmentBuffer geometry;
    coorddims smallint; 

           shorterSegment:= 'SRID=4326;LINESTRINGM(0 0 1.5, 10 10
2)'::geometry;     

        shorterSegmentBuffer := st_expand(shorterSegment,
exactdistance);
        coorddims := st_zmflag(shorterSegmentBuffer);    

Same problem exists for st_intersection; only 2D geometries are returned
since the z-component is zeroed out.  The st_intersection function
indicates
an intersection over the entire flight path even when the aircraft are
separated by days.  The M-component is critical since aircraft fly in
the
same flight path; same x-, y- and z-components.

There aren't plans to make the M-component operational for st_expand()
nor
for st_intersection()?  I was attempting a polygon surface only because
there isn't a 3D nor 4D bounding box that works with time.


Paul Ramsey-3 wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a 3D polygon, except for
> trivial cases (the triangle, the shape with all Z's the same).
> Everything else is unclear on how to interpret the enclosed "plane"
> (if that is what it is) formed by an irregularly elevated boundary. So
> we can store the things, but there's really no decent way to interpret
> them in generality. For that we need the real stuff, Surfaces,
> volumes, etc.
>
> I think the "low hanging fruit" is probably more the "infrastructural
> requirement". We need a 4D index. That will allow us to handle things
> like 4D time tracks and point clouds efficiently, and form the
> indexing basis for future volumetric objects.
>
> P.
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Obe, Regina
<robe.dnd at cityofboston.gov>
> wrote:
>> I'm not sure how low hanging the fruit :), but first off would be
being
>> able
>> to do intersections and indexable ST_DWithin with 3D polygons and
>> linestrings and so forth. For example when I place a cable up on a
roof I
>> need to know if I'm hitting another piece of equipment.
>>
>> Higher fruit - being able to support volumetric geometries.  Right
now we
>> support 2d-3D polygons and lines and you can form wireframes with
those,
>> but
>> no true volumetric stuff.  But then what do I know, I'm just
parroting
>> things I've heard in whispers and those whispers are getting louder
is
>> all
>> :)
>>
>> There is still the issue of being able to display 3-D geometries
without
>> spending a fortune on proprietary stuff which is not a PostGIS issue,
but
>> has to gain in momentum to make PostGIS 3D more powerful (e.g. uDig
for
>> 3D
>> or OpenJump for 3D or OpenLayers for 3D?)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Regina
>> ________________________________
>> From: postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net on behalf of Paul
>> Ramsey
>> Sent: Tue 10/7/2008 12:30 PM
>> To: PostGIS Development Discussion
>> Subject: Re: [postgis-devel] Dropped DM (Time) dimension with
>> intersections
>>
>> Perhaps elabourate on what better 3D support would be? There's the
>> surface object hanging around. There's the issue of maintaining
higher
>> dimensional coordinates through lower dimensional transforms (which
>> you saw the result of a few days ago). There's elabourating the
>> complete set of 3D objects and relationships (gulp).
>>
>> It's not clear to me what is the "low hanging fruit" that will make
3D
>> users happiest in the shortest time.
>>
>> P.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Obe, Regina
<robe.dnd at cityofboston.gov>
>> wrote:
>>> Margie,
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I think the answer is no.  Most of the work going on
in
>>> 1.4
>>> is
>>> to improve speed of existing functionality and reorganize the source
to
>>> make
>>> it more maintainable.
>>>
>>> Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
>>>
>>> I for one would be very elated if we had better 3D support since
CityGML
>>> and
>>> similar initiatives are becoming more of a hot topic around here.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Regina
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net
>>> [mailto:postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net] On Behalf Of
>>> Huntington, Margaret (US SSA)
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 11:47 AM
>>> To: postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
>>> Subject: [postgis-devel] Dropped DM (Time) dimension with
intersections
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>>     Currently I'm using PostGIS 1.3.3.  From past discussions and
from
>>> testing, both the st_intersection st_extend methods return 2D
results
>>> with
>>> 4D input geometries.  As a temporary work-around, I had hoped
>>> st_intersection might work with 3DM geometries.  (Plan was to
>>> interpolate
>>> the altitude value within the function call if PostGIS could
calculate
>>> the
>>> time dimension).   I found time components are also dropped by
>>> st_intersection with 3DM geometries.  I abandoned usage of 4D
bounding
>>> boxes
>>> since these too effectively degrade 4D geometries down to 2D
geometries
>>> (altitude and time are zeroed out).
>>>
>>>     polyGeometry geometry;
>>>
>>>     bbGeometry geometry;
>>>
>>>     intersectionGeometry geometry;
>>>
>>>     coorddims smallint;
>>>
>>>            -- both polygon and linestring have an expected zmflag
value
>>> of
>>> 1
>>>
>>>            polyGeometry := 'SRID=4326;POLYGONM((0 0 0, 0 10 4, 10 10
4,
>>> 10
>>> 0
>>> 0, 0 0 0))'::geometry;
>>>
>>>            bbGeometry := 'SRID=4326;LINESTRINGM(0 0 1.5, 10 10
>>> 2)'::geometry;
>>>
>>>            intersectionGeometry := st_intersection(polyGeometry,
>>> bbGeometry);
>>>
>>>            -- st_intersection method drops the time dimension;
zmflag
>>> value
>>> of 0
>>>
>>>            coorddims := st_zmflag(intersectionGeometry);
>>>
>>> If I were to download the subversion snapshot, the current 1.4
version,
>>> might st_intersection work with either 3DM or 4D geometries?  Are
>>> bounding
>>> boxed or st_extend improved for either 3DM or 4D geometries?  I had
>>> incorporated polygons only as a possible work-around to the bounding
box
>>> and
>>> st_extend 2D limitations.
>>>
>>> Margie
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> The substance of this message, including any attachments, may be
>>> confidential, legally privileged and/or exempt from disclosure
pursuant
>>> to
>>> Massachusetts law. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you
>>> received
>>> this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material
from
>>> any
>>> computer.
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> Help make the earth a greener place. If at all possible resist
printing
>>> this
>>> email and join us in saving paper.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> postgis-devel mailing list
>>> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
>>> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> postgis-devel mailing list
>> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
>> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> The substance of this message, including any attachments, may be
>> confidential, legally privileged and/or exempt from disclosure
pursuant
>> to
>> Massachusetts law. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you
>> received
>> this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from
any
>> computer.
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Help make the earth a greener place. If at all possible resist
printing
>> this
>> email and join us in saving paper.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> postgis-devel mailing list
>> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
>> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-users mailing list
> postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
>
>

--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--postgis-devel--Dropped-DM-%28Time%29-dimens
ion-with-intersections-tp19862743p19959830.html
Sent from the PostGIS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
postgis-users mailing list
postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users

  _____  

The substance of this message, including any attachments, may be
confidential, legally privileged and/or exempt from disclosure pursuant
to Massachusetts law. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material from any computer. 

  _____  

Help make the earth a greener place. If at all possible resist printing
this email and join us in saving paper. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-users/attachments/20081013/e20aad7f/attachment.html>


More information about the postgis-users mailing list