[gdal-dev] [EXT] Re: [EXT] Re: [Doc] gdal_calc.py extent option

[Idan Miara]

Hi Matt,

No, we don't suggest they should be reversed.

If you look at the union, you could also make the minimal bounding box
bigger and it will still include the union, thus we dedine the union to be
the smallest of all bounding boxes that contains that blue figure.

Likewise, for the intersection, we would use the maximum bounding box that
still fully contained inside that blue area.

Idan.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022, 23:00 Matt.Wilkie, <Matt.Wilkie at yukon.ca> wrote:

> *The definitions are correct. For the union you want a rectangle (or
> polygon) that's larger than the input, indeed. But you want the smallest of
> those rectangles, because there's an infinity of them. The larger ones
> would cover an arbitrary area of the plane (or the globe, if you want).*
>
>
>
> *Same for the intersection. You want the largest polygon equal to or
> contained in the inputs. Otherwise a smaller answer could just as well be a
> single point (or empty), even in nondegenerate cases.*
>
>
>
> Please verify I’m parsing these words the way you intend. To me it sounds
> like you’re saying the labels for these figures should be reversed? (for
> gdal)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Matt
> _______________________________________________
> gdal-dev mailing list
> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20221019/290ec152/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 17728 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20221019/290ec152/attachment-0001.png>