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
intersection analysis is missleading #10263
Comments
+1 |
Having done work with tons of students on this, here's the answer to a few: point - polygon <- what is the use case?
line - point <- this does not work because the change a line a point intersects is really low
line - line <- what is the use case?
polygon - polygon <- what is the use case?
You are missing: |
If you consider "intersection" more broadly as a spatial join, where the two geometries do not necessarily exist in the same space but have a relationship that the user might be concerned about, I've listed the use cases below. However, they might not really fit under the name "intersection" and should live in a different analysis:
|
Also, I'd say that I don't think any of the additional cases I outlined above are at all high priority, just that they do exist. And to reiterate, "intersection" is not the right term for many of them. The only one I think that could be useful sooner rather than later would be point - point, just plugging into KNN. And also to make sure that point-polygon and polygon-point are interchangeable, if possible. |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
We have a intersection analysis that works with any geometry but no all the intersecions make sense:
So my proposal is to simplify and have a polygon - point and then some specific like "aggregate by line" where we find closest point.
cc @saleiva
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: