Skip to content
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

Incorrect results with fixed-precision buffer #96

Open
dbaston opened this issue May 1, 2017 · 0 comments
Open

Incorrect results with fixed-precision buffer #96

dbaston opened this issue May 1, 2017 · 0 comments

Comments

@dbaston
Copy link
Contributor

dbaston commented May 1, 2017

Copying an old issue over from the mailing list:

I confirmed this is still a bug in JTS 1.14 (trunk).

Not sure what's going on, but there's a lot of complex processing in the
buffer algorithm, and lower precision models tends to stress the robustness
of some of the processes.

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Daniel Baston <dbaston@...> wrote:

Hi Martin,

I came across a strange result from a basic buffer operation today, using
a buffer distance of 3.6e-4 and the following LineString:

LINESTRING (-89.188142 48.482882, -89.186677 48.483336, -89.181966
48.483669, -89.173652 48.483456, -89.17351 48.474992, -89.167407 48.474742,
-89.171975 48.47285, -89.173831 48.471316, -89.175295 48.468853, -89.177579
48.459002, -89.178864 48.457182, -89.183325 48.454576, -89.184967
48.454683, -89.18561 48.455397, -89.193498 48.451257, -89.197424 48.454612,
-89.19878 48.455468, -89.199708 48.457039, -89.199744 48.458252, -89.2016
48.459038, -89.201814 48.460037, -89.203349 48.461001, -89.20342 48.462964,
-89.202599 48.463678, -89.202563 48.464998, -89.201171 48.465284,
-89.199958 48.466604, -89.200922 48.468817, -89.201243 48.469781,
-89.197959 48.471173, -89.194997 48.472779, -89.194854 48.473529,
-89.192641 48.475349, -89.190357 48.47592, -89.190357 48.47724, -89.188893
48.477562, -89.187716 48.479239, -89.188142 48.482882)

Running this through TestBuilder in 1.13, I get seemingly correct results
with a PrecisionModel of 1e5 or 1e7 (or full double-precision), but the
result is incorrect (missing a hole) with a PrecisionModel of 1e6. Any
thoughts on this?

Thanks,
Dan

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants