On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:10:34PM +0200, Michal Zimmermann wrote: > Sandro, > earlier you said > >One benefit is making the spatial relationships explicit, so that > > you could encode your counties as being composed by the districts, > > and the districts would be composed by faces, which would be defined > > by (shared) edges. > > At that point querying for "all districts in a county" would just be > > a matter of listing the components of a "county" TopoGeometry. > > Does this mean it is better approach to have only one topology enabled > layer (in my case districts) with features having some id of which > county they belong to? In the end, I need to have county > districts > > cadastral areas chain (all of them being represented as polygons). > Right now I have both counties and districts layer with topology, but > I can't see a way to join them (e. g. to "select all districts from > counties where county.id = 1").
You mean you have TopoGeometry fields ? Show the output of TopologySummary(<your_topology_name>) --strk; http://www.cartodb.com - Map, analyze and build applications with your data ~~ http://strk.keybit.net _______________________________________________ postgis-users mailing list postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
