Re: [gdal-dev] Call for discussion on RFC 64: Triangle, Polyhedral surface and TIN

Hi, Perhaps some problem with markup, the WKT dows show in Nabble http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/gdal-dev-Call-for-discussion-on-RFC-64-Triangle-Polyhedral-surface-and-TIN-tc5298840.html MULTIPOLYGON ((( 553 352, 327 363, 442 486, 553 352 )), (( 327 363, 553 352, 422 186, 327 363 )))

Re: [gdal-dev] Call for discussion on RFC 64: Triangle, Polyhedral surface and TIN

On mercredi 7 décembre 2016 02:01:54 CET jratike80 wrote: > Even Rouault-2 wrote > > > Hi, > > > > This is a call to discuss the proposed RFC 64: Triangle, Polyhedral > > surface and TIN > > > > https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc64_triangle_polyhedralsurface_tin > > > > ~ > > I am

Re: [gdal-dev] Call for discussion on RFC 64: Triangle, Polyhedral surface and TIN

> Thanks Even, I was thinking of preserving an indexed mesh, with (for > example) a constrained triangulation. Simple features will ingest this, but > once it comes back out vertex de-duplication would be enough to restore the > indexing. You'd need some record of vertex identity after they are

Re: [gdal-dev] Call for discussion on RFC 64: Triangle, Polyhedral surface and TIN

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 at 07:41 Even Rouault wrote: > On mardi 6 décembre 2016 20:31:57 CET Michael Sumner wrote: > > > Thanks Even, > > > > > > Does a TriangulatedSurface consist of separate Triangles, all with each > > > three vertices stored explicitly? I.e. is there

Re: [gdal-dev] Call for discussion on RFC 64: Triangle, Polyhedral surface and TIN

Even Rouault-2 wrote > Hi, > > This is a call to discuss the proposed RFC 64: Triangle, Polyhedral > surface and TIN > > https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc64_triangle_polyhedralsurface_tin > > ~ I am wondering this part: "GEOS methods are still used in some cases, but with the

Re: [gdal-dev] Call for discussion on RFC 64: Triangle, Polyhedral surface and TIN

On mardi 6 décembre 2016 20:31:57 CET Michael Sumner wrote: > Thanks Even, > > Does a TriangulatedSurface consist of separate Triangles, all with each > three vertices stored explicitly? I.e. is there no shared vertex pool that > primitives use via index? Yes, the TriangulatedSurface is a

Re: [gdal-dev] Call for discussion on RFC 64: Triangle, Polyhedral surface and TIN

Thanks Even, Does a TriangulatedSurface consist of separate Triangles, all with each three vertices stored explicitly? I.e. is there no shared vertex pool that primitives use via index? That seems to be what simple features dictates, but it's unclear to me how applications should work with it.

[gdal-dev] Call for discussion on RFC 64: Triangle, Polyhedral surface and TIN

Hi, This is a call to discuss the proposed RFC 64: Triangle, Polyhedral surface and TIN https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc64_triangle_polyhedralsurface_tin ~ Summary: As of now, the OGRGeometry class (the base class from which all the subtypes are derived) is limited to