Edzer: On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Agustin Lobo ~ from Barry Rowlingson wrote: To convert to SpatialLines, get the coordinates and build in the usual convoluted manner:
> s=data.frame(x=runif(10),y=1:10,z=rnorm(10)) > coordinates(s)=~x+y > L = SpatialLines(list(Lines(list(Line(coordinates(s))),"X"))) > plot(L) Convoluted is not the same as orphaned, certainly, but one gets the sense that 'Line' owes its existence to matters of plotting rather than line as line, independent of drawing it, and this may have some import upon line analysis and the possibility of arriving at topology and dispensing with shared lines and the like. So love would be something like not depending on plotting for existence. You guys are the experts, mine are just the reflections of a mere mortal. Chris > Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:26:34 +0100 > From: edzer.pebe...@uni-muenster.de > To: r-sig-geo@r-project.org > Subject: Re: [R-sig-Geo] R 3.0.0 and spatial classes > > Could you please detail in which respect you believe they are orphaned, > right now, and what kind of love they should receive? > > On 12/16/2012 07:16 PM, Chris English wrote: > > > > Well, I hope something is done with Spatial Lines that seem strangely like > > orphans > > while Spatial Points, Spatial Polygons, Spatial Grids and Spatial Pixels > > get all the love. > >> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:13:07 +0000 > >> From: b.rowling...@lancaster.ac.uk > >> To: r-sig-geo@r-project.org > >> Subject: [R-sig-Geo] R 3.0.0 and spatial classes > >> > >> There's been an announcement that the next version of R will be called > >> 3.0.0. Although not a massive change (compared to Python 2.x and 3.x, > >> or Perl 4 to Perl 5), it might be a good opportunity to revise all the > >> spatial classes in order to: > >> > >> * clear out any cruft > >> * remove any inconsistencies > >> * add some new functionality > >> * unify across spatial packages > >> > >> The first thing that springs to mind, for example, is getting sp and > >> raster to use the same functions for coordinate reference system > >> processing. Doubtless there are other opprtunities for synergy... > >> > >> Yes, this may well break existing code, but if R is going to jump > >> from 2 to 3 then that will break existing code too. > >> > >> Your ponderances, please... > >> > >> Barry > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> R-sig-Geo mailing list > >> R-sig-Geo@r-project.org > >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-geo > > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > R-sig-Geo mailing list > > R-sig-Geo@r-project.org > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-geo > > > > -- > Edzer Pebesma > Institute for Geoinformatics (ifgi), University of Münster > Weseler Straße 253, 48151 Münster, Germany. Phone: +49 251 > 8333081, Fax: +49 251 8339763 http://ifgi.uni-muenster.de > http://www.52north.org/geostatistics e.pebe...@wwu.de > > _______________________________________________ > R-sig-Geo mailing list > R-sig-Geo@r-project.org > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-geo [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
_______________________________________________ R-sig-Geo mailing list R-sig-Geo@r-project.org https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-geo
