[gdal-dev] Motion: adopt RFC 64: Triangle, Polyhedral surface and TIN

Daniel Morissette dmorissette at mapgears.com
Wed Dec 14 07:42:32 PST 2016


Thank you for the clarification. Since those changes are useful by 
themselves then I change my vote to +1

Daniel


On 2016-12-14 10:19 AM, Even Rouault wrote:
> On mercredi 14 d├ęcembre 2016 10:05:46 CET Daniel Morissette wrote:
>
>> +0 as I'm wondering if there could be a better way to handle this, i.e.
>
>> it's not clear to me how useful it is to read/write those new geometry
>
>> types without maintaining the (topological?) relationships between the
>
>> objects. I am no expert with that type of data structures so my concerns
>
>> may be completely invalid too and I have no alternative to offer, hence
>
>> my +0.
>
>
>
> The Simple Feature model clearly doesn't maintain topological
> relationships. Topological consistency must be checked in a later stage
> with a IsValid() call for example (this also holds true for already
> handled geometry types). And if you look at some drivers that implement
> TIN currenlty like PostGIS or GML, they are based on the Simple Feature
> model as well. Only shapefile/filegdb has something a bit stronger with
> shared nodes.
>
>
>
> I think that support for topological geometries would be a completely
> different concept to be added in OGR. Would require management of nodes,
> edges and faces, and conversions between simple feature geometries and
> topogeometries. I had some preliminary discussions about that with an
> interested party in the past but they didn't go further.
>
>
>
> In the current state of things, the TIN support should be hopefully good
> enough for conversions between PostGIS, GML, DXF and shapefile/filegdb.
>
>
>
> Even
>
>
>
>>
>
>> Daniel
>
>>
>
>> On 2016-12-13 1:13 PM, Even Rouault wrote:
>
>> > On vendredi 9 d├ęcembre 2016 12:10:25 CET Even Rouault wrote:
>
>> >> Hi,
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >> There have been some good remarks, one regarding integration with GEOS
>
>> >
>
>> > that
>
>> >
>
>> >> I've taken into account in the implementation, another one
> regarding the
>
>> >>
>
>> >> possibility to get indexed TIN that I think can be later added if
> needed.
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >> So I move to adopt RFC 64: Triangle, Polyhedral surface and TIN
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >> https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc64_triangle_polyhedralsurface_tin
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >> Starting with my +1,
>
>> >
>
>> > Friendly remainder that this motion is under vote.
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> > Even
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> > --
>
>> >
>
>> > Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
>
>> >
>
>> > http://www.spatialys.com
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> > _______________________________________________
>
>> > gdal-dev mailing list
>
>> > gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
>
>> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
>
> http://www.spatialys.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gdal-dev mailing list
> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>


-- 
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/
T: +1 418-696-5056 #201

http://evouala.com/ - Location Intelligence Made Easy


More information about the gdal-dev mailing list