On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 04:22:24PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: > On 13/07/2012 16:05, Jochen Topf wrote: > >On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 03:24:47PM +0200, Even Rouault wrote: > >>>That sounds reasonable. But we need to agree on what is valid and what is > >>>treated as invalid. In the testsuite of closed ways that I commited to > >>>github I defined an output for every case, but I'm not sure if the inputs > >>>are valid. My guess would be: > >>>1) Definitely valid > >>OK > >> > >>>2) valid > >>Why do you need to reverse the winding order ? I thought that the WKT > >>convention > >Winding order should not be changed IMHO. It might mean something in specific > >cases, who knowns? It could be an optional feature. > > > >Jochen > Is there not a problem with making winding order significant, as a > particular way can be shared between adjacent polygons? For example > the common boundary between two admin areas. For the polygon on the > left, the points within the way must be ordered north-to-south (for > clockwise winding) whereas the polygon on the right will require > south-to-north.
Thats what I am saying. The winding order should not be significant. Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev