Martijn van Oosterhout wrote > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Rahkonen Jukka > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The coastline polygon data is topologically not very clean. > PostGIS found 11482 topological errors from the total > processed_a table which I imported three days ago. That was > partly leading me to wrong direction because my strict GIS > client did not show me anything if the queried dataset had > faulty geometries. I have deleted all faulty features from > the Finnish coastline subset and now I can use coastline > polygon data also with OpenJUMP which does not not tolerate > as much errors as Quantum GIS. > > That seems like a lot. I can't think of the coastline checker > producing actual broken geometries, unless you have some > other definition of "topological error" than I'm thinking of.
Hi, By topological errors I mean the cases which PostGIS reports with isvalid(way)=false. I remember that most cases are nested holes, others included at least those two-point polygons and ring self-intersections. I can count a sorted list while back at home if you wish. My case is also possible to repeat. I imported the data into PostGIS with shp2pgslq, source data was processed shapefiles which I downloaded a few days ago. I don't know if shp2pgsql can generate that kind of errors by itself, I have not used that tool very much. -Jukka- _______________________________________________ Mapnik-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/mapnik-users
