-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 204
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
Add all remaining predicates: covered by, covers, crosses, overlaps, and touches #1136
Conversation
We now additionally check that neither of the input geometry dimensions are empty for |
46054aa
to
45eaef9
Compare
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.
There is what looks to be a straight forward typo in is_overlaps
, but other than that LGTM.
One take it or leave it (truly) style thing.
Thanks for seeing this through!
covered by, covers, crosses, overlaps, touches
Many thanks for the reviews. Our long national nightmare is over. |
CHANGES.md
if knowledge of this change could be valuable to users.I want to do a little more checking with regard to the logic we use to determine whether the input dimensions differ (which is a requirement of theCrosses
predicate), and conversely checking whether they're the same (a requirement of theOverlaps
predicate). I'm currently doing this by interrogating the IM for the following two relations:a-interior / b-exterior
anda-exterior / b-interior
. I assert that if they're not equal the input geometry dimensions differ, and vice versa, but I'm not yet 100 % certain that this is true for all valid input geometries.Addressed in af8a50c for all non multi-geometries.