Hi Jukka,
Just improved RemoveSpike plugin (make it iterative to detect spikes
appearing after a spike has been removed)
and produce a new layer with the geometry of the spike and whether it
has been fixed or not (it is not fixed if
it produces an invalid geometry).
Also moved MakeValid and Rem
Hi,
With these data OJ is using 7 GB of memory out of 8 that I have and calculating
the differences has continued for 45 minutes now. It is quite a much compared
with the 25 seconds that was needed for running the Remove spikes.
We got the data from outside and we would like to send a report ab
Hi,
A good tool to find what the plugin did is "QA>Calculate geometry
differences"
I have two enhancements in mind :
- produce a layer with the location of removed vertices (as removed
vertices will often be out of the new polygon, I'm not sure it will be
readable though, maybe I'll choose to
Hi Michaël,
I tested the plugin with my problematic data. Plugin is at least very fast and
it processed the whole layer in 25 seconds. However, it is a bit difficult to
investigate what it really did because the majority of polygons are without
spikes. Could it be possible to add an option that
Hi Ede,
I moved RemoveSpikePlugIn to QA but deactivated it for 1.9.1 release.
Anyway, I want to add some options to the plugin before an official
release (to prevent/detect invalid geometries generated by the process)
I'll move MakeValid plugin to QA after the release.
Michaël
Le 11/03/2016 23:
Mike,
it's more a tradition than a choice. version numbers symbolize more than simple
advancement. maintenance version counting is not named like that for nothing.
meaning if we really change/add something major (like menu positions), we have
to raise the version number to signalize it. i'd rat
Hi Ede,
I think there are also pros to move them now :
It will be easier for users to change habit if the plugin has not stayed
at the "wrong" place for years.
It seems obvious for RemoveSpike which has never been officially
released yet (I must put it right now where we collectively decided it
Mike,
can you keep that for after 1.9.1? moving menu entries should if possible not
happen between maintenance version releases.
..ede
On 11.03.2016 14:42, Giuseppe Aruta wrote:
> I also agree with your proposal Michael, about MakeValid and Remove Spike.
> Regarding Precision reducer, I prefer
I also agree with your proposal Michael, about MakeValid and Remove Spike.
Regarding Precision reducer, I prefer to have it on geometry.
Peppe
2016-03-11 14:32 GMT+01:00 Stefan Steiniger :
> my 2 cents: QA :) same for MakeValid
>
>
> On 3/11/16 04:53, Michaël Michaud wrote:
>
> Hi Peppe,
>
> Alwa
my 2 cents: QA :) same for MakeValid
On 3/11/16 04:53, Michaël Michaud wrote:
Hi Peppe,
Always difficult to "classify" plugins.
IMHO, RemoveSpike has not much to do with topology as it is not
intended to change feature topology (neither internal topology of
single features nor topology betwee
Hi Peppe,
Always difficult to "classify" plugins.
IMHO, RemoveSpike has not much to do with topology as it is not intended
to change feature topology (neither internal topology of single features
nor topology between features). But I agree that Edit Geometry may not
be the ideal choice.
My sec
Hi Michael,
Interesting tool.
Instead to add under Tools/Edit geometry, we can create a new submenu
(Toools/Topology) for this plugin and similar.
best regards
Peppe
2016-03-11 0:05 GMT+01:00 Michaël Michaud :
> Hi Jukka,
>
> Just added a plugin to remove spikes. We can include it in the 1.9.1 or
Hi Jukka,
Just added a plugin to remove spikes. We can include it in the 1.9.1 or
deactivate it from default-plugin.xml to let you more time to test.
I used two parameters (distance / angle) which may have a slightly
different effect, but it may be more difficult to use. Let me know what
you th
13 matches
Mail list logo
