Andy, The problem is that when drawing a border, those points are along the same line, so extra ones take up unnecessary rows in my database since I'm flattening the shapefile into a table. Here's the list again, with a new point added:
45.900, 178.353 45.900, 178.355 45.900, 178.361 45.900, 178.363 45.901.178.364 It would take up less space in my table to simplify to this list: 45.900, 178.353 45.901, 178.364 Jason On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Andy Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jason, > > If your axes were orientated differently, you could get no numbers the same > in that list. The are all different coordinates, it is not like you keep > going backwards and forwards to the same points in the example you gave. > > Maybe I'm confused. > > Best wishes, > > Andy > > > > ________________________________ > From: Jody Garnett [[email protected]] > Sent: 24 May 2011 03:58 > To: Jason Ferguson > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Geotools-gt2-users] Properly Reducing Decimal Precision > > JTS does provided a Precision object you can use with a Gometry factory to > explicitly control precision. That combined with simplify geometry operations > should give you the control you need? > > Note we also make use of "decimation" to skip over points that would > otherwise render into the same pixel; perhaps that code could be a useful > example for you? > > While there is a page in the user guide > (http://docs.geotools.org/latest/userguide/library/jts/simplify.html) I could > really use a code example if you can produce one :-) > > -- > Jody Garnett > > > On Tuesday, 24 May 2011 at 10:47 AM, Jason Ferguson wrote: > > I am attempting to store data from the TIGER/Line shapefiles into a > database table, but am having issues with reducing the precision from > the 5 decimal places to 3 decimal places. > > What I find is that after I dig down and get the coordinates, then > eliminate duplicates, I'm left with a list of coordinates something > like this (which I call semi-duplicates for lack of a better term): > > 45.900, 178.353 > 45.900, 178.355 > 45.900, 178.361 > 45.900, 178.363 > > I end up with the same latitude, but several intermediate longitudes > (or vice versa). I don't need all of these intermediate points, but I > realize that this is an artifact of brute force rounding. > > Is there a "better" way to reduce the decimal precision? > > Jason > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. > With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, > you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. > Download your free trial now. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 > _______________________________________________ > Geotools-gt2-users mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-gt2-users > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. Download your free trial now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 _______________________________________________ Geotools-gt2-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-gt2-users
