Geometry relation name

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Geometry relation name

michaelm-2
Hi,

One Geometry relation (or predicate) I often miss is "intersects but not
touches", or "interiors intersect" or IM = "T********" (or may be
"within, contains or overlaps")
I'm not totally sure all of these are strictly equivalent, but I think
you catched the need.

I need this to finalize a new aggregation plugin for OpenJUMP.
I think that most useful geometry predicates to aggregate values on a
polygon layer are
- aggregate values of features strictly included in the target polygon
(within is ok, covered by may be even better)
- aggregate values of features included or overlapping the polygon, but
not features just touching it (no predicate for it)

The question is : what would be a good verb and/or name in english for
such a relation.
In french, I would say "Intersecte franchement" or "Intersecte strictement"
In english, I have written "plain intersects", but I'd rather hear from
native english speakers about it.

Thanks for your help

Michaël
_______________________________________________
jts-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/jts-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Geometry relation name

Martin Davis
I've frequently found that this relation would be useful too.  I've
*almost* added it to JTS as a method...  but not yet.  But it's simple
enough to call via relate (although it would be nice to have
PreparedGeometry support this as well - there is some potential for
optimization)

I was planning to call it "interiorIntersects"  (or
"interiorsIntersect", which is a bit more grammatically correct).

Michael, I'll take your email as +1 to add to JTS...  8^)

Michael Michaud wrote:

> Hi,
>
> One Geometry relation (or predicate) I often miss is "intersects but
> not touches", or "interiors intersect" or IM = "T********" (or may be
> "within, contains or overlaps")
> I'm not totally sure all of these are strictly equivalent, but I think
> you catched the need.
>
> I need this to finalize a new aggregation plugin for OpenJUMP.
> I think that most useful geometry predicates to aggregate values on a
> polygon layer are
> - aggregate values of features strictly included in the target polygon
> (within is ok, covered by may be even better)
> - aggregate values of features included or overlapping the polygon,
> but not features just touching it (no predicate for it)
>
> The question is : what would be a good verb and/or name in english for
> such a relation.
> In french, I would say "Intersecte franchement" or "Intersecte
> strictement"
> In english, I have written "plain intersects", but I'd rather hear
> from native english speakers about it.
>
> Thanks for your help
>
> Michaël
> _______________________________________________
> jts-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/jts-devel
>

--
Martin Davis
Senior Technical Architect
Refractions Research, Inc.
(250) 383-3022

_______________________________________________
jts-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/jts-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Geometry relation name

michaelm-2
Martin,
> I've frequently found that this relation would be useful too.  I've
> *almost* added it to JTS as a method...  but not yet.  But it's simple
> enough to call via relate (although it would be nice to have
> PreparedGeometry support this as well - there is some potential for
> optimization)
Yes, I can use "relate".
It was painful for me to understand the syntax, but I appreciate how
powerful it is when specific topologic relation is needed
>
> I was planning to call it "interiorIntersects"  (or
> "interiorsIntersect", which is a bit more grammatically correct).
Fine, I'll change my PlainIntersects by InteriorsIntersect).
NB : are interiorIntersects and interiorsIntersect topologically
equivalent, or maybe interiorIntersects should accept interior of A
intersects boundary of B while InteriorsIntersect shouldn't :-\
> Michael, I'll take your email as +1 to add to JTS...  8^)
Thanks for patiently answering all my questions ;-)

Michaël

>
> Michael Michaud wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> One Geometry relation (or predicate) I often miss is "intersects but
>> not touches", or "interiors intersect" or IM = "T********" (or may be
>> "within, contains or overlaps")
>> I'm not totally sure all of these are strictly equivalent, but I
>> think you catched the need.
>>
>> I need this to finalize a new aggregation plugin for OpenJUMP.
>> I think that most useful geometry predicates to aggregate values on a
>> polygon layer are
>> - aggregate values of features strictly included in the target
>> polygon (within is ok, covered by may be even better)
>> - aggregate values of features included or overlapping the polygon,
>> but not features just touching it (no predicate for it)
>>
>> The question is : what would be a good verb and/or name in english
>> for such a relation.
>> In french, I would say "Intersecte franchement" or "Intersecte
>> strictement"
>> In english, I have written "plain intersects", but I'd rather hear
>> from native english speakers about it.
>>
>> Thanks for your help
>>
>> Michaël
>> _______________________________________________
>> jts-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/jts-devel
>>
>

_______________________________________________
jts-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/jts-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Geometry relation name

Martin Davis


Michael Michaud wrote:
> Fine, I'll change my PlainIntersects by InteriorsIntersect).
> NB : are interiorIntersects and interiorsIntersect topologically
> equivalent, or maybe interiorIntersects should accept interior of A
> intersects boundary of B while InteriorsIntersect shouldn't :-\

Michael, I'd be hesitant to attach different semantics to names which
are so easily confused.  If you think there's a need for a relation
which takes the boundary into account, I would recommend that we come up
with a more descriptive name.  Otherwise, just go with
InteriorsIntersect to provide the straightforward "T********" semantics.


--
Martin Davis
Senior Technical Architect
Refractions Research, Inc.
(250) 383-3022

_______________________________________________
jts-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/jts-devel
Loading...