-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 154
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
MultiGeometry binary predicate support. #1220
base: branch-23.08
Are you sure you want to change the base?
MultiGeometry binary predicate support. #1220
Conversation
# rhs is contained by lhs if all of the vertices in the | ||
# intersection are in rhs. However, the intersection | ||
# does not contain the vertex (0.5, 0.5) in the original rhs. | ||
rhs_self_intersection = _basic_intersects_pli(rhs, rhs) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It feels like you need a separate API that handles linestring merging. Something like:
void merge_points_on_multilinestring_range(MultiLinestringRange range, OutputIt output);
Because calling the self intersection just to remove the additional points is too expensive.
points = _pli_points_to_multipoints(pli) | ||
lines = _pli_lines_to_multipoints(pli) | ||
# Optimization: only compute the subsequent boundaries and equalities | ||
# of indexes that contain point intersections and do not contain line |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
# of indexes that contain point intersections and do not contain line | |
# of indices that contain point intersections and do not contain line |
lhs_crosses = lhs_boundary_matches != points.sizes | ||
rhs_crosses = rhs_boundary_matches != points.sizes |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It says "none of the points of intersection is in the boundary of the geometry". AKA, there is 0 points in the intersection results that are in the boundary. Shouldn't this be
lhs_boundary_matches == 0
?
@@ -39,6 +42,15 @@ class OverlapsPredicateBase(EqualsPredicateBase): | |||
pass | |||
|
|||
|
|||
class LineStringLineStringOverlaps(BinPred): | |||
def _preprocess(self, lhs, rhs): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A small docstring helps:
def _preprocess(self, lhs, rhs): | |
def _preprocess(self, lhs, rhs): | |
"""Linestring overlaps with another linestring if the overlapping part of | |
two linestring is not the entire section of the linestring. | |
""" |
Sounds correct?
""" | ||
x x | ||
| / | ||
| //x |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I thought only backward slash needs escaping, does forward slash too?
assert (got.values_host == expected.values).all() | ||
|
||
|
||
def test_point_multipoint(predicate): # noqa: F811 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is noqa
needed? There's no import here.
d5af1c0
to
1c8e980
Compare
Description
Closes #1063
Closes #1210
MultiPoint and MultiLineString predicates, this PR.
An exception to this involves MultiLineStrings that can be merged by their endpoints. Shapely/GEOS appears to merge these MultiLineStrings before calling the binary predicates on them, producing different results for contains, covers, crosses, touches, and within. We can only duplicate this behavior by implementing a merge functionality of our own.
This PR has implementations of Multi geometry binary predicates for:
Point-MultiPoint
MultiPoint-Point
MultiPoint-MultiPoint
Point-MultiLinestring
MultiLineString-Point
LineString-MultiLinestring
MultiLinestring-LineString
MultiLineString-MultiLineString
Remaining to be tested and implemented are one Polygon configuration: Polygon-MultiLineString and the MultiPolygon configurations.
(Multi)LineString-(Multi)LineString tests have issues caused by non-simple MultiLineStrings - that is, any LineString that has self-intersection is non-simple.
crosses
Crosses compares the vertices of intersection with boundary vertices of the lhs and rhs, and is true only when the intersection vertices are not equal to boundary vertices of the lhs or rhs.
There are two fundamental issues in the crosses predicate that I'm still befuddled on:
touches
The touches predicate appears to have the same fundamental issues as the crosses predicate and fails on the same cases. This is because touches compares vertices of intersection with boundary vertices of the lhs and rhs, and is true when the intersection vertices only equal boundary vertices.
MultiPolygon incomplete
Major improvements also need to be made to the Polygon.contains predicate in order to handle predicates with MultiPolygon types on the lhs. This is because MultiPolygon.contains({MultiLineString, MultiPolygon}) iff all geometries of the rhs are contained in any geometry of the lhs. This requires that improvements be made to the point-in-polygon and .contains routines to better handle many-to-many operations.
Quadtree point in polygon can be used with many-to-many operations, but will quickly create results too large for memory with large sets of lhs and rhs. A single MultiPolygon in the lhs needs to have a many-to-many point in polygon called against the points in its corresponding rhs, but does not need to compute point in polygon for all of the points in the other, non-corresponding rhss.
MultiPolygon predicates have begun implementation here:
https://github.com/thomcom/cuspatial/tree/feature/multipolygon-test-dispatch
Checklist