Hi Paolo, Werner
Additionally to the version consideration, I'd suggest to keep the plugin in
the source until we have sound feedback from a few dxf powerusers.
Because matching dxf to GIS is difficult (multilayers, labels, different
feature
types can be in one layer). So accessing dxf via
Il giorno mer, 26/01/2011 alle 09.13 +0100, Marco Hugentobler ha
scritto:
Additionally to the version consideration, I'd suggest to keep the plugin in
the source until we have sound feedback from a few dxf powerusers.
Agreed, it makes sense to me.
All the best.
--
http://www.faunalia.it/pc
Hi Jürgen
but I'd expect OGR to present a
layer list (organized by DXF layers and geometry types)
The layers are not organised by geometry type (this is also true for other OGR
formats). Maybe, from QGIS side, it needs a similar approach as for the
PostGIS tables without entries in
Hi,
On Wed, 26. Jan 2011 at 10:26:11 +0100, Marco Hugentobler wrote:
but I'd expect OGR to present a
layer list (organized by DXF layers and geometry types)
The layers are not organised by geometry type (this is also true for other
OGR formats). Maybe, from QGIS side, it needs a similar
Hi!
Yes, we could allow to set a geometry type and skip all features with a
different geometry type or better return an empty geometry instead - to get the
feature count right.
Or we could extent the layers to have three renderers - one for each geometry
type. We recently added NoGeometry -
Or we could extent the layers to have three renderers - one for each
geometry type. We recently added NoGeometry - so I figure we know where
to look now. That way we could also get rid of that PostGIS filter trick
(ugly because you could remove the filtering subset string).
Sounds like a
Am Mittwoch, 26. Januar 2011, um 13.37:02 schrieb Marco Hugentobler:
Or we could extent the layers to have three renderers - one for each
geometry type. We recently added NoGeometry - so I figure we know where
to look now. That way we could also get rid of that PostGIS filter trick
(ugly
Hi all.
I checked today, and I saw that reading DXF through gdal 1.7 works
reasonably well. Wouldn't it be better then to drop the dxf2shape
plugin, who has no maintainer and a few bugs?
All the best.
--
http://www.faunalia.it/pc
___
Qgis-developer
On 01/25/2011 08:14 PM, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
Hi all.
I checked today, and I saw that reading DXF through gdal 1.7 works
reasonably well. Wouldn't it be better then to drop the dxf2shape
plugin, who has no maintainer and a few bugs?
All the best.
+1 from me ...
I think its always better to
Il giorno mar, 25/01/2011 alle 20.24 +0100, Werner Macho ha scritto:
BUT that can happen only at that time when every distribution or ships
gdal in a reasonable version (1.7 in this case) which IMHO is not at
this time .. so please postpone that as long as (for my purposes debian)
does not
10 matches
Mail list logo
