FWIW I think support for M would be a very welcome addition. An
immediate use I'd see for it would be support for time on GPS tracks in
GPX files.
Note that if supporting the M dimension doesn't seem enough for a SoC
project, making sure that all formats that support M (or as many as
possible) are upgraded to properly implement it may very well fill the
rest of the summer.
My 0.02$
Daniel
On 2015-03-17 9:04 PM, Even Rouault wrote:
Selon Edson Ticona <xcr...@gmail.com>:
Hi
I was looking for the ideas list on the site and found this one
interesting: "Adding support for "M" dimension in OGR Geometries" but
it's from 2014. Is it still relevant for the project? I searched on
the code and it isn't implemented.
For example, the class OGRGeometry needs the methods isMeasured,
LocateAlong and LocateBetween according to the definition on the OGC
simple standard. I couldn't find an ISO standard talking about M
coordinates. Which one do you refer on the page?
What do you think? Some feedback would be helpful.
Edson,
Yes it is still relevant. Perhaps SQL/MM Part 3 mentions it ? I didn't check.
You'll find the link to a draft doc on
http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc49_curve_geometries
What has been done in PostGIS might also be interested looking into.
M only might be a bit light for a whole SOC, so adding support for
POLYHEDRALSURFACE and TIN might also been interesting for completness (and full
PostGIS interoperability).
Even
--
Daniel Morissette
T: +1 418-696-5056 #201
http://www.mapgears.com/
Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
