-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
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
Unified topological editing #13543
Comments
Author Name: Sandro Santilli (@strk) See http://strk.keybit.net/blog/2011/10/14/postgis-topology-iso-sqlmm-complete/comment-page-1/#comment-7521 for some design ideas about PostGIS-topology specific editing toolbar.
|
Author Name: Luís Ferreira (Luís Ferreira) Some ideas [[http://strk.keybit.net/blog/2011/10/14/postgis-topology-iso-sqlmm-complete/comment-page-1/#comment-7638]] |
Author Name: Martin Dobias (@wonder-sk) The main issue we are facing here is that the topological models of various data sources (grass, postgis-topo, osm) differ quite a lot between each other. From what I know:
Please correct me if I am wrong. The question is how to handle these differences:
The former approach sounds much better |
Author Name: Sandro Santilli (@strk) I'd like to avoid too much abstraction on the PostGIS side actually.
Note that some of the above operations (those creating new edges or faces or removing them) Seems all very postgis-specific (or should I say ISO SQL/MM specific). |
Author Name: Sandro Santilli (@strk) FYI: I've started a project on github for postgis topology editing. At least will serve for brainstorming. |
Author Name: Pirmin Kalberer (Pirmin Kalberer)
|
Author Name: Markus Neteler (Markus Neteler) Sandro Santilli wrote:
Sandro, do you continuously develop this plugin? |
Author Name: Sandro Santilli (@strk) Markus, I'm not developing it, no. But I'm maintaining it (unfortunately needed as QGIS API changes more often than I'd like). |
Author Name: Giovanni Manghi (@gioman)
|
Author Name: Paolo Cavallini (@pcav) Still true in QGIS3. Unclear status: it's a lot of work, and possibly we should better concentrate in native QGIS tools.
|
The QGIS project highly values your report and would love to see it addressed. However, this issue has been left in feedback mode for the last 14 days and is being automatically marked as "stale". |
While we hate to see this happen, this issue has been automatically closed because it has not had any activity in the last 42 days despite being marked as feedback. If this issue should be reconsidered, please follow the guidelines in the previous comment and reopen this issue. |
Author Name: Paolo Cavallini (@pcav)
Original Redmine Issue: 3483
Redmine category:digitising
Currently QGIS has two different methods for editing:
IMHO it would be good to unify the two, digitizing always (optionally?) with full topology, and writing (a)topologically when on a topological format (in future also e.g. GML3-topo, [[PostGIS]]-topo), (b) non topologically when on SF.
This would be both more powerful and clean, and less confusing for users.
See also http://grass.osgeo.org/grass64/manuals/html64_user/wxGUI.Vector_Digitizer.html
http://grass.osgeo.org/wiki/WxGUI_Vector_Digitizer for missing (topological) features.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: