+0 as I'm wondering if there could be a better way to handle this, i.e.
it's not clear to me how useful it is to read/write those new geometry
types without maintaining the (topological?) relationships between the
objects. I am no expert with that type of data structures so my concerns
may be completely invalid too and I have no alternative to offer, hence
my +0.
Daniel
On 2016-12-13 1:13 PM, Even Rouault wrote:
On vendredi 9 décembre 2016 12:10:25 CET Even Rouault wrote:
Hi,
There have been some good remarks, one regarding integration with GEOS
that
I've taken into account in the implementation, another one regarding the
possibility to get indexed TIN that I think can be later added if needed.
So I move to adopt RFC 64: Triangle, Polyhedral surface and TIN
https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc64_triangle_polyhedralsurface_tin
Starting with my +1,
Friendly remainder that this motion is under vote.
Even
--
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
--
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/
T: +1 418-696-5056 #201
http://evouala.com/ - Location Intelligence Made Easy
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
