Hei Larry yep.. thats a very good suggestion with the Cancel button - I hope to add it the next days.
And for the boundary extraction: yes, having more control is the idea. But it also allows to use other line-modifying tools (e.g. smoothing and displacement) besided simplification. cheers from Europe stefan Larry Becker schrieb: > Hi Stefan, > > Simplify Polygon Coverage is an interesting tool! It worked like a > charm for me. Warning, do not attempt this on very large layers as it > will take a very long time. One possible improvement would be to > support the Cancel button for these cases. > > Extract Common Boundaries Between Polygons is a more subtle tool. I > guess this would be used if you wanted to do additional processing steps > or just have more control over the Polygonize process? > > thanks, > Larry > > On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Stefan Steiniger <sst...@geo.uzh.ch > <mailto:sst...@geo.uzh.ch>> wrote: > > Hei, > > I added two new tools that should be available in tomorrows nightly > build: > > I) A tool that extracts boundaries as linestrings from polygon > tesselations and classifies the boundaries either as shared or > non-shared > => to find in /tools/edit geometry/convert > > II) Based on the previous tools and several other functions* I was able > to write a function that simplifies the outline of polygons part of a > tesselation. However, too strong tolerance values may destroy the > topology of the resulting polygon coverages. Therefore I recommend to > simplify iteratively, i.e. to apply (the same) small value several times > (if this makes sense - because I am not sure how the D-P simplify algo > acts if applied several times - or to increase the value with every run > - but here I am not sure what happens then with the overall > simplification tolerance ). > => to find in /tools/generalization/ > > happy testing > stefan > > *) it is quite interesting to see that a couple of new functions, which > have been added this year, are heavily building on existing topology > functions added a while ago (i.e. simplify polygon coverage and > two-layer intersection are build on the polygonizer and planar graph > stuff). Seems like OJ may have an advantage in vector analysis compared > to other FOS desktop GIS if we can keep going that way ;) [provided the > time is found] > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Jump-pilot-devel mailing list > Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > <mailto:Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel > > > > > -- > http://amusingprogrammer.blogspot.com/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Jump-pilot-devel mailing list > Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
