I think this is a good way to do it. In precision-reduction operation I can imagine that some input polygons would disappear; maintaining a 1:1 correspondence would require including NULLs in the output, which seems unwieldy.
Dan On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 12:15 PM Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca> wrote: > > > > On Sep 7, 2022, at 9:12 AM, Brendan Ward <bcw...@astutespruce.com> > wrote: > > > > Having final outputs (e.g., coverage => polygons) relate 1:1 to the > input polygons so we can re-attach associated data will be essential > > I wonder if having the userData survive the trip from > polygon->coverage->polygon would be sufficient? > > P > _______________________________________________ > geos-devel mailing list > geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel >
_______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
