> GEOS is neutral, and the GEOS nomenclature is misleading IMO. Because the > process treats each ring (polygons) separately, all that is preserved are > the nodes where three rings touch, but not the boundaries between two > polygons, which may generate empty slivers, or overlap. I would have taken > the term to imply that if input rings shared all boundary points between > nodes, then they would be simplified identically, but this is not the case. > To get this (desirable) behaviour, you need a topological vector GIS, like > GRASS. Since I feel that the GEOS name is misleading, the default is FALSE, > but I'm open to better ideas.
Ah, thanks. This sort of simplification has been on my to do list to implement for a long time, but unfortunately it's pretty low priority. If I have to, I do simplification by hand with http://mapshaper.org/ - I've tried, with no luck, to contact the authors to find out how they're implementing it so quickly. Hadley -- Assistant Professor / Dobelman Family Junior Chair Department of Statistics / Rice University http://had.co.nz/ _______________________________________________ R-sig-Geo mailing list R-sig-Geo@r-project.org https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-geo
