> When asked for a version please report the output of:
> SELECT postgis_full_version();
> That way we have full information. There is 2.0.0 and 2.0.1 of PostGIS.
This is the report
"POSTGIS="2.0.0 r9605" GEOS="3.3.3-CAPI-1.7.4" PROJ="Rel. 4.8.0, 6 March
2012" GDAL="GDAL 1.9.0, released 2011/12/29" LIBXML="2.7.8"
LIBJSON="UNKNOWN" RASTER"
> I fail to understand your CreateTopoGeom query in there.
> Did you try toTopoGeom as a replacement of CreateTopoGeo and
> CreateTopoGeom ?
yes, i have tried toTopoGeom at the second way but there was an error..
oh, it's a bug..but i don't understand the query
search_path to <output_from_previous_query>, topology
could you make it more clear please?
> How did you visualize ? What do you mean by "messy" ?
i visualized the result in x3d st_asx3d and used viewer x3d to see that..
the object was cube but the result was not geometrical shape..
> The topology in your backup results valid, and I can see it just fine.
> But yes, I do see a lot of very small faces, a lot of edges close
> to one other.
i suspect the data...the geometry in KML stored polygons as below
<coordinates>
110.4244266570589,-6.9900927235122,41.705
110.4244266570599,-6.9900927235112,38.705
110.4244979911114,-6.9901227444861,41.705
110.4244266570589,-6.9900927235122,41.705
</coordinates>
isn't that inconsistent with topology principles?
> Maybe you should try to specify a tolerance when creating the topology.
> Did you try that ?
ok, i'll try to specify a tolerance..
thank you for your tip..i think i missed the editing step of geometry..
--
View this message in context:
http://postgis.17.n6.nabble.com/Topology-Postgis-2-0-tp5000006p5000075.html
Sent from the PostGIS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
postgis-users mailing list
postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
