I'm recording different types of geometry for a given resource (Project
Area vs. Area of Potential Effect, in this case), and would like a little
feedback on the following methodology, if anyone has any.
For background, a simple v3 resource with one polygon looks like this in
its raw json form:
{
"_index": "resource",
"_version": 5,
"typename": "Management Activity (A)",
"source": {
"geometry": {
"type": "GeometryCollection",
"geometries": [
{
"type": "Polygon",
"coordinates": [
[
[
-77.01996456234521,
38.93674344318805
],
[
-77.01708923428123,
38.93480730232329
],
[
-77.01309810726707,
38.9378116362102
],
[
-77.0173896416909,
38.93897995390404
],
[
-77.01932504997106,
38.93729891398618
],
[
-77.01996456234521,
38.93674344318805
]
]
]
},
]
},
"graph": {
"PLACE_E53": [
{
"SPATIAL_COORDINATES_GEOMETRY_E47": [
{
"ACTIVITY_GEOMETRY_TYPE_E55__label": "Project Area",
"ACTIVITY_GEOMETRY_TYPE_E55__value": "Project Area",
"SPATIAL_COORDINATES_GEOMETRY_E47__value": "POLYGON
((-77.0199645623452080 38.9367434431880500, -77.0170892342812290
38.9348073023232930, -77.0130981072670690 38.9378116362101990,
-77.0173896416908970 38.9389799539040380, -77.0193250499710590
38.9372989139861830, -77.0199645623452080 38.9367434431880500))",
"SPATIAL_COORDINATES_GEOMETRY_E47__label": "POLYGON
((-77.0199645623452080 38.9367434431880500, -77.0170892342812290
38.9348073023232930, -77.0130981072670690 38.9378116362101990,
-77.0173896416908970 38.9389799539040380, -77.0193250499710590
38.9372989139861830, -77.0199645623452080 38.9367434431880500))"
}
]
},
]
},
"value": "",
"label": "",
"primaryname": "Unnamed Resource",
"child_entities": [],
"entitytypeid": "ACTIVITY_A.E7",
"entityid": "37b91e97-bb78-4dee-864b-c493052151c9",
"property": "",
"businesstablename": ""
},
"found": true,
"_id": "37b91e97-bb78-4dee-864b-c493052151c9",
"type": "ACTIVITY_A.E7"
}
As you can see, a single geometry is stored in two separate places, once in
this list, resource["source"]["geometry"] (which is stored in GeoJSON) and
once within the full graph structure,
resource["graph"]["PLACE_E53"]["SPATIAL_COORDINATES_E47"][
"SPATIAL_COORDINATES_GEOMETRY_E47__value"] (which is stored in WKT). In
all mapped representations of the resource, the GeoJSON is used. However,
the geometry type that is stored in the graph, in this case, "Project Area"
(but in Arches-HIP this could be "vicinity point",or "perimeter polygon")
is completely lost in the GeoJSON representation.
I'd like to show Project Areas and Areas of Potential Effect in different
colors. To do so, I'll sort through the resource graph and create new
geometry collections. Thing is, I'll need to convert these geometries from
the graph WKT to GeoJSON. I've found a couple of methods for this
https://gist.github.com/drmalex07/5a54fc4f1db06a66679e
and https://github.com/larsbutler/geomet.
I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this, or whether this
conversion is handled in a different manner elsewhere in the Arches app?
If not, were there ever plans in Arches-HIP to display the difference
between (for example) a vicinity point and an access point?
Adam
--
-- To post, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe, send
email to [email protected]. For more information,
visit https://groups.google.com/d/forum/archesproject?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Arches Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
