Am Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2013, 16.07:49 schrieb Andreas Neumann:
> I can't comment about the technical issues. But from a user point of
> view there is a need to have more than one geometry representation per
> feature. There could be several generalizations attached to a feature,
> or different state
I am reading through a WMS for raster data using GDALOpen with a GDALWMS xml
file. The first pass of reading the file it picks up the projection
information without an issue. On a later pass of doing a GDALOpen during the
same process the projection information is blank. I think it may be som
Le mercredi 24 juillet 2013 18:42:59, Frank Warmerdam a écrit :
> Even,
>
> An excellent proposal!
>
> I'm a bit sad about GetSpatialRef() on the first geometry field not
> necessarily returning the right value for old drivers. I'd suggest we make
> a quick pass through the checked in drivers on
Even,
An excellent proposal!
I'm a bit sad about GetSpatialRef() on the first geometry field not
necessarily returning the right value for old drivers. I'd suggest we make
a quick pass through the checked in drivers once your core work is done to
update them.
I'd be interested in implementing m
Le mercredi 24 juillet 2013 16:07:49, Andreas Neumann a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I can't comment about the technical issues. But from a user point of
> view there is a need to have more than one geometry representation per
> feature. There could be several generalizations attached to a feature,
> or diff
Hi,
I can't comment about the technical issues. But from a user point of
view there is a need to have more than one geometry representation per
feature. There could be several generalizations attached to a feature,
or different states.
I would welcome such a feature in OGR.
I guess Swisstopo als
On Jul 24, 2013, at 8:47 AM, Even Rouault wrote:
> Too verbose maybe ;-) , since you probably missed the (discrete) mention to
> the OLCCreateGeomField capability (at layer level since CreateGeomField() is
> a
> OGRLayer method)
Indeed. Thanks for a thorough RFC. Now people can move on to arg
Le mercredi 24 juillet 2013 15:43:11, David Strip a écrit :
> I had considered validate(), but decided against it for the reason you
> suggest - an initialized SRS might be in some weird format that fails
> validation. I've been using exportToWkt(), but was/am concerned that it
> might be possible
> Impressive, logical, complete, and verbose.
>
> The only small addition I might suggest is a driver capabilities flag to
> announce whether or not it has multiple geometry field support. It could
> simply be the driver that has not been updated to support multiple
> geometry fields or the fact t
I had considered validate(), but decided against it for the reason you
suggest - an initialized SRS might be in some weird format that fails
validation. I've been using exportToWkt(), but was/am concerned that it
might be possible to fail to export in odd-ball situations. Hence, my
question abo
On Jul 24, 2013, at 7:49 AM, Even Rouault wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a call for discussion for "RFC 41 : Support for multiple geometry
> fields in OGR" :
>
> http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc41_multiple_geometry_fields
>
> As an introduction, you'll find below the first paragraphs of the RFC
Hi,
This is a call for discussion for "RFC 41 : Support for multiple geometry
fields in OGR" :
http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc41_multiple_geometry_fields
As an introduction, you'll find below the first paragraphs of the RFC. Much
more
to read at the above link !
== Summary ==
Add read/w
12 matches
Mail list logo
