Hi all, I would be more than happy if there was xyzm support in OGR. But I thought this won't happen until we decide to implement OGC Simple Feature Access 1.2 specification. Now ogr implements Simple Feature 1.1 that does not support M-values or even Z-coordinates.
It would be nice to see this in GDAL 2.0 -Lauri On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Pirmin Kalberer <pi...@sourcepole.com> wrote: > Am Freitag, 16. Dezember 2011, 21.04:13 schrieb Even Rouault: >> Le vendredi 16 décembre 2011 15:48:30, Pirmin Kalberer a écrit : >> > Hi Frank, all >> > >> > Am Mittwoch, 14. Dezember 2011, um 08.31:22 schrieb Frank Warmerdam: >> > > Folks, >> > > >> > > I would like to have a GDAL/OGR 1.9 release by the end of this year, >> > > ideally before Christmas. We have not formalized a release process >> > > for the project, but I'd like to follow the approach of past years. >> > > This basically consists of a few beta releases, followed by a >> > > release >> > > candidate when things seem to be in good shape. The release >> > > candidates >> > > would be voted on by the PSC before becoming official. >> > > >> > > Anyone with significant work they would like to accomplish before >> > > 1.9.0 >> > > should reply to this thread with information on the planned work. >> > >> > I've created a patch adding read support for shapefile measure values: >> > http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/2374 >> > If someone could review the patch, I would like to include it in trunk >> > for the 1.9.0 release. >> >> Pirmin, >> >> I see you just report the M coordinate as the Z coordinate. I feel that the >> approach proposed is a bit hackish... There should be a way for the user to >> know if it is M or Z that he gets. IMHO, the right approach would be to >> implement proper M support in OGR Geometry classes, and that the Shapefile >> driver uses a specific method to set M values. I see there's explicit M >> support in the OGC OpenGIS Implementation Specification for Geographic >> information - Simple feature access - Part 1: Common architecture > > Hi Even, > > Would be nice to have full support for XYM and XYZM geometries. I don't know > how much work it would require. This minimalistic support for XYM geometries > was discussed a few times in the last years and it's better than nothing IMHO. > Talking about extending the internal OGR data model, support for multiple > geometries in a layer would have much higher priority for me... > > Regards > Pirmin > > -- > Pirmin Kalberer > Sourcepole - Linux & Open Source Solutions > http://www.sourcepole.com > > _______________________________________________ > gdal-dev mailing list > gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
