On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 06:33:46PM +0530, Chaitanya kumar CH wrote:
> strk,
>
> You are right. The sequence of the elements _can_ be specified explicitly
> using a sequence tag. Without that it will just be a guess work, especially
> if any of the rings have a common point.
Ah, great to hear that
strk,
You are right. The sequence of the elements _can_ be specified explicitly
using a sequence tag. Without that it will just be a guess work, especially
if any of the rings have a common point.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:38 PM, strk wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 01:51:08PM +0100, strk wrot
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 01:51:08PM +0100, strk wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 01:24:08PM +0100, Even Rouault wrote:
> >
> > So we should implement detection of cycles to emit as
> > many rings as necessary.
>
> Yes. This for each face.
To add some more about the topic, I'm not sure the direct
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 05:53:20PM +0530, Chaitanya kumar CH wrote:
> Thank you very much for pointing out the errors. I could blame it on the
> lack of enough sample data but that's just laziness. I should have read the
> specifications more throughly.
I noticed primarly because the GDAL interpr
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 01:24:08PM +0100, Even Rouault wrote:
> Le dimanche 30 janvier 2011 12:09:12, strk a écrit :
> >
> > n1
> > +-e1-->-.
> > | F1 |
> > | n3 |
> > | ,-e2->-+|
> > | | F2 ||
> > | +-<-e7-'|
> > | n4|
>
Hi Sandro,
CC'ing Chaitanya who implemented the reading of topological GML3 elements.
Le dimanche 30 janvier 2011 12:09:12, strk a écrit :
> Hello,
> I'm writing GML output routines for Topologically-defined features
> in PostGIS and found what I think is a bug in how ogr interprets
> the tag co
strk,
Thank you very much for pointing out the errors. I could blame it on the
lack of enough sample data but that's just laziness. I should have read the
specifications more throughly.
I see your first point but I need to dig deeper for the second.
Please file a ticket at http://trac.osgeo.org/
Hello,
I'm writing GML output routines for Topologically-defined features
in PostGIS and found what I think is a bug in how ogr interprets
the tag contents.
Take this topology:
n1
+-e1-->-.
| |
| F1 |
| n3 |
| ,-e2->-+|
| | |
