Sounds good to me. I have added two methods, simplify and topology_preserve_simplify to the base geometry class in r1493. I wasn't sure about the naming of the methods. The second method is a little long, and I would normally use camel case, but I think this is the Shapely standard. Please correct me if this is wrong though. I copied a few of the tests from GEOS and they seem to work fine. Is this what you were thinking for support in 1.2? I would agree that in 2.0 we could add something better since it might not be a OGC standard. This should allow people to start using it though.
-Aron On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Sean Gillies <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 9, 2009, at 7:43 PM, Helge Jensen wrote: > >> I am doing simplification of polygons for storage and calculation >> efficiency. and would like to do polygon-simplification. >> >> Currently I use the postgis function ST_SimplifyPreserveTopology to >> do the >> simplification, however the dataset is growing large and I would >> like to >> move the pre-processing away from the database which should be busy >> answering real-time queries. >> >> I am already doing pre-processing (parsing from list(x,y,level), >> rasterisation and polygonization) in python (and distributed too, >> thanks to >> the new multiprocessing module). >> >> So, I spotted the shapely bindings for GEOS, and the thread >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00510.htmlwhich >> indicated that a Douglas-Peucker variant was easily accessible for me >> and my pre-processing code. >> >> However I have checked out the trunk and not been able to "from >> shapely.geos.ops import simplify", or even find the shapely.geos.ops >> module > > Hi, > > In that email, I'd suggested that in the trunk I *might* move the > simplify method to a function in an ops module, or provide a > complementary function. The work hasn't been done yet. > > Instead of using the trunk, I strongly recommend trying the 1.2 > branch. Aron Bierbaum has put a lot of work into it, tests are > passing, and I think we're pretty close to where we can start to > consider a preview release. A geometry simplify method or its > functional counterpart isn't implemented there yet, but wouldn't be > much work, and would be a lot closer to being deployable than the > Shapely trunk. > > http://svn.gispython.org/svn/gispy/Shapely/branches/1.2 > > Aron, what do you think about simplification for 1.2? > > -- > Sean Gillies > Programmer > Institute for the Study of the Ancient World > New York University > > _______________________________________________ > Community mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community > _______________________________________________ Community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community
