On 31/10/2007, at 6:57 AM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
If you restrict yourself to tracking points, you can make assumptions that allow significant data structure optimization. Polygons are much more difficult to generalize in a scalable way because there is no guarantee that a natural boundary exists with which to nicely partition any arbitrary set of polygons. Handling this case well is difficult.
I had this problem, and concluded that the only way of tracking arbitrary shapes was to define that shape with an embedded scripting language. The language can then describe areas of interest in arbitrary ways.
Some level of optimisation is possible by categorising the output "area of interest" by type - eg, object in one area for volumetric segmenting (eg, BSP), other shapes (eg, range of dots across an area) fobbed off into "pathological". :)
Any generalised method of categorising and describing shapes always had some exception that I could think of, and codifying a subset of shapes was always going to end up in a situation where it would be a hack to work around inbuilt limits.
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
