[GRASS-user] v.generalize / reanimation of dead lines ?

["Peter Löwe"]

Hi,

I second the "unclean deletion" theory as I encountered this phenomenon before. Also, when generalizing areas which are attached to each other, while the overall "appearance" of the generalized borderlines is ok, more than 50 % of the areas cease to exist, which needs further investigation: Apart from "dead lines" we're dealing with "area mutilation" and "centroid abduction"!

The (topological) truth is somewhere out there,
Peter


-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:17:46 +0300
> Von: Wolf Bergenheim <wolf+grass at bergenheim.net>
> An: dylan.beaudette at gmail.com
> CC: grass-user at lists.osgeo.org, hamish_b at yahoo.com, peter.loewe at gmx.de, Daniel Bundala <bundala at gmail.com>
> Betreff: Re: [GRASS-user] v.generalize / reanimation of dead lines ?

> On 29.08.2008 18:54, Dylan Beaudette wrote:
> > 
> > I have noticed this behavior as well when using v.generalize. I will try
> and 
> > dig up the exact situation that caused it-- but I am pretty sure that
> the 
> > initial linework was correct = unclean deletion.
> > 
> 
> That is very much possible. This module is still quite young and hasn't
> gone through a lot of live testing yet. Dylan, I'd be vey interested in
> this, if you can give me a simple case where it goes wrong.
> 
> --Wolf
> 
> Adding Daniel Bundala to the Cc list, as he wrote it last summer.
> 
> -- 
> 
> <:3 )---- Wolf Bergenheim ----( 8:>

-- 
Dr. Peter Löwe
<peter.loewe at gmx.de>





Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten 
Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser