[Qgis-developer] behavior of splitting feature

2013-04-22 Thread Denis Rouzaud
Hi, I am dealing with multi polygons these days, and I find very annoying to not being able to split a part into several part. First, am I right saying it's not feasible? If yes, I would like to propose to add a choice to the splitting tool: - split into several features - split into several p

Re: [Qgis-developer] behavior of splitting feature

2013-04-22 Thread Andreas Neumann
Hi Denis, I agree - this is another improvement that should be implemented. I would opt for option 3, with the drop-down buttons, or maybe also just a modifier key. Option 1 and 2 is sub-optimal. I would also welcome your other suggestion about the drop-down for ring-manipulation. Not sure how

Re: [Qgis-developer] behavior of splitting feature

2013-04-22 Thread Alexandre Neto
You can use Multipart Split Plugin to split the selected multipart features. http://plugins.qgis.org/plugins/splitmultipart/ Alexandre Neto On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Denis Rouzaud wrote: > Hi, > > I am dealing with multi polygons these days, and I find very annoying to > not being able t

Re: [Qgis-developer] behavior of splitting feature

2013-04-22 Thread Andreas Neumann
Hi, I would propose that the editing stuff should go into QGIS core. It is cumbersome having to download plugins all the time for editing. I would also suggest to implement the CAD stuff in QGIS core. I can't see why someone does not want to have these improvements. That way the tools get more e

Re: [Qgis-developer] behavior of splitting feature

2013-04-22 Thread Paolo Cavallini
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Il 22/04/2013 20:51, Andreas Neumann ha scritto: > I would propose that the editing stuff should go into QGIS core. It is > cumbersome having to download plugins all the time for editing. > > I would also suggest to implement the CAD stuff in QGIS co

Re: [Qgis-developer] behavior of splitting feature

2013-04-23 Thread Denis Rouzaud
Hi Andreas, Thanks for your reply. Indeed, I'll try to do option 3. I am doing this now, so it will probably be part of 2.1 Cheers, Denis On 04/22/2013 05:08 PM, Andreas Neumann wrote: Hi Denis, I agree - this is another improvement that should be implemented. I would opt for option 3, wi