Geometry Checker contra Topology Checker

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Geometry Checker contra Topology Checker

Radim Blazek-2
Is it Geometry Checker replacement for Topology Checker? It has more
options but does not support multiple layers. What is the future,
Geometry Checker or Topology Checker or both merged together?

Radim
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geometry Checker contra Topology Checker

Giovanni Manghi
Hi,

> Is it Geometry Checker replacement for Topology Checker? It has more
> options but does not support multiple layers. What is the future,
> Geometry Checker or Topology Checker or both merged together?


this is the classic example of bad redundancy we would need to remove
in QGIS. Not only we have now the geometry checker and the topology
checker, but there is also a core python tool to check for geometry.
It seems to me that the last two should should eventually be merged in
the first one, considered that they do not offer any tool to fix the
geometries and that they have a few issues (slow, problems with
reprojected layers, false positives, etc.).

cheers

-- g --
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geometry Checker contra Topology Checker

Sandro Mani


On 06.10.2015 20:33, Giovanni Manghi wrote:

> Hi,
>
>> Is it Geometry Checker replacement for Topology Checker? It has more
>> options but does not support multiple layers. What is the future,
>> Geometry Checker or Topology Checker or both merged together?
>
> this is the classic example of bad redundancy we would need to remove
> in QGIS. Not only we have now the geometry checker and the topology
> checker, but there is also a core python tool to check for geometry.
> It seems to me that the last two should should eventually be merged in
> the first one, considered that they do not offer any tool to fix the
> geometries and that they have a few issues (slow, problems with
> reprojected layers, false positives, etc.).
>
Hello

Further development of the C++ plugins is not on our radar at this time
beyond maintenance and fixing possible outstanding issues. It will also
be next year until it will use the reduced precision mode of GEOS as was
originally intended. That said, I'm happy to answer any question about
the architecture of the plugin if anyone wants to extend it to
eventually be able to replace the python plugins.

Best
Sandro

_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geometry Checker contra Topology Checker

Salvatore Larosa-2
In reply to this post by Giovanni Manghi
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Giovanni Manghi
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>> Is it Geometry Checker replacement for Topology Checker? It has more
>> options but does not support multiple layers. What is the future,
>> Geometry Checker or Topology Checker or both merged together?
>
>
> this is the classic example of bad redundancy we would need to remove
> in QGIS. Not only we have now the geometry checker and the topology
> checker, but there is also a core python tool to check for geometry.
> It seems to me that the last two should should eventually be merged in
> the first one, considered that they do not offer any tool to fix the
> geometries and that they have a few issues (slow, problems with
> reprojected layers, false positives, etc.).

Just as additional note, we have two identical entries under the
Vector menu "Geometry Tools".

--
Salvatore Larosa
linkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/larosasalvatore
twitter: @lrssvt
skype: s.larosa
IRC: lrssvt on freenode
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geometry Checker contra Topology Checker

Sandro Mani


On 06.10.2015 22:28, Salvatore Larosa wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Giovanni Manghi
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Is it Geometry Checker replacement for Topology Checker? It has more
>>> options but does not support multiple layers. What is the future,
>>> Geometry Checker or Topology Checker or both merged together?
>>
>> this is the classic example of bad redundancy we would need to remove
>> in QGIS. Not only we have now the geometry checker and the topology
>> checker, but there is also a core python tool to check for geometry.
>> It seems to me that the last two should should eventually be merged in
>> the first one, considered that they do not offer any tool to fix the
>> geometries and that they have a few issues (slow, problems with
>> reprojected layers, false positives, etc.).
> Just as additional note, we have two identical entries under the
> Vector menu "Geometry Tools".
The cause of this is that fTools creates the "Geometry Tools" vector
menu entry internally, whereas the C++ plugins use the QgisInterface
method "addPluginToVectorMenu". I suppose the reason for the fTools
behaviour is that the QgisInterface method does not allow you to specify
the icon for the menu entry. And I suppose the reason
QgisInterface::addPluginToVectorMenu does not allow you to specify the
icon is because this would lead to potential inconsistent behaviour when
multiple plugins use the same label text but different icons. So I'm not
sure how to best solve this.

_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geometry Checker contra Topology Checker

Nyall Dawson
In reply to this post by Giovanni Manghi
On 7 October 2015 at 05:33, Giovanni Manghi <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>> Is it Geometry Checker replacement for Topology Checker? It has more
>> options but does not support multiple layers. What is the future,
>> Geometry Checker or Topology Checker or both merged together?
>
>
> this is the classic example of bad redundancy we would need to remove
> in QGIS. Not only we have now the geometry checker and the topology
> checker, but there is also a core python tool to check for geometry.
> It seems to me that the last two should should eventually be merged in
> the first one, considered that they do not offer any tool to fix the
> geometries and that they have a few issues (slow, problems with
> reprojected layers, false positives, etc.).

We also should move the first one to the analysis library, so that the
routines are accessible by plugins and processing framework.... Just
another item on the TODO list!

Nyall
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geometry Checker contra Topology Checker

pcav
Il 06/10/2015 23:23, Nyall Dawson ha scritto:

> We also should move the first one to the analysis library, so that the
> routines are accessible by plugins and processing framework.... Just
> another item on the TODO list!

sure, big improvement. better opening a ticket?
Giovanni, could you please add tickets for the missing features of the
new plugin, and one for the removal of previous plugins?
all the best, and thanks.

--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS & PostGIS courses: http://www.faunalia.eu/training.html
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geometry Checker contra Topology Checker

Radim Blazek-2
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Il 06/10/2015 23:23, Nyall Dawson ha scritto:
>
>> We also should move the first one to the analysis library, so that the
>> routines are accessible by plugins and processing framework.... Just
>> another item on the TODO list!
>
> sure, big improvement. better opening a ticket?
> Giovanni, could you please add tickets for the missing features of the
> new plugin, and one for the removal of previous plugins?
> all the best, and thanks.

I must say that I like more the concept of rules in Topology Checker
instead of one big dialog used in Geometry Checker. Both from UI and
programming point of view. It is more flexible and extensible. I am
curious why a new plugin was started instead of improvement of the old
one. I don't think that the Topology Checker should be simply removed
until we have something similar in terms of definition and
implementation of rules.

Radim
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geometry Checker contra Topology Checker

Salvatore Larosa-2
Hi Radim,

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Radim Blazek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I must say that I like more the concept of rules in Topology Checker
> instead of one big dialog used in Geometry Checker. Both from UI and
> programming point of view. It is more flexible and extensible. I am
> curious why a new plugin was started instead of improvement of the old
> one. I don't think that the Topology Checker should be simply removed
> until we have something similar in terms of definition and
> implementation of rules.

+1, something that I thought and that I could not express.

--
Salvatore Larosa
linkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/larosasalvatore
twitter: @lrssvt
skype: s.larosa
IRC: lrssvt on freenode
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geometry Checker contra Topology Checker

Sandro Mani


On 07.10.2015 09:29, Salvatore Larosa wrote:

> Hi Radim,
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Radim Blazek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I must say that I like more the concept of rules in Topology Checker
>> instead of one big dialog used in Geometry Checker. Both from UI and
>> programming point of view. It is more flexible and extensible. I am
>> curious why a new plugin was started instead of improvement of the old
>> one. I don't think that the Topology Checker should be simply removed
>> until we have something similar in terms of definition and
>> implementation of rules.
> +1, something that I thought and that I could not express.
>
To explain the background - the design was done based on specific
requirements by a customer. The code was written from scratch to
properly implement the entire logic of fixing errors and tracking the
effect of fixing one error on other errors. But from a programming point
of view the implementation is actually very modular and easily
extensible. The UI is differently organized, it was felt that it allowed
the user to more quickly set up the "check session". But as far as I'm
concerned in it's current form I don't see it as deprecating the current
topology checker.
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geometry Checker contra Topology Checker

ginetto
In reply to this post by Radim Blazek-2
I was planning to add Export functionality to Topology Checker during
next HM in Gran Canaria... but now I'm confused where to focus my
work.
If I read well the code, the Topogy Checker have a result data
structure where all geometry of the errors, bbox and more are
maintained.
I didn't test the SourcePole plugin and I don't know if it manage
inter/layer check... well I remeber the presentation in Nodebo, but I
didn't realize this kind of "plugin conflict". So, in this moment, I
remain focusing my work on Topology Checker.

regards,

Luigi Pirelli

**************************************************************************************************
* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
* Elance: https://www.elance.com/s/edit/luigipirelli/
* GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
* Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
* Mastering QGIS:
https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/mastering-qgis
**************************************************************************************************


On 7 October 2015 at 09:25, Radim Blazek <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Il 06/10/2015 23:23, Nyall Dawson ha scritto:
>>
>>> We also should move the first one to the analysis library, so that the
>>> routines are accessible by plugins and processing framework.... Just
>>> another item on the TODO list!
>>
>> sure, big improvement. better opening a ticket?
>> Giovanni, could you please add tickets for the missing features of the
>> new plugin, and one for the removal of previous plugins?
>> all the best, and thanks.
>
> I must say that I like more the concept of rules in Topology Checker
> instead of one big dialog used in Geometry Checker. Both from UI and
> programming point of view. It is more flexible and extensible. I am
> curious why a new plugin was started instead of improvement of the old
> one. I don't think that the Topology Checker should be simply removed
> until we have something similar in terms of definition and
> implementation of rules.
>
> Radim
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geometry Checker contra Topology Checker

Giovanni Manghi
In reply to this post by Radim Blazek-2
>>> We also should move the first one to the analysis library, so that the
>>> routines are accessible by plugins and processing framework.... Just
>>> another item on the TODO list!
>>
>> sure, big improvement. better opening a ticket?
>> Giovanni, could you please add tickets for the missing features of the
>> new plugin, and one for the removal of previous plugins?
>> all the best, and thanks.
>
> I must say that I like more the concept of rules in Topology Checker
> instead of one big dialog used in Geometry Checker. Both from UI and
> programming point of view. It is more flexible and extensible. I am
> curious why a new plugin was started instead of improvement of the old
> one. I don't think that the Topology Checker should be simply removed
> until we have something similar in terms of definition and
> implementation of rules.


Hi, I haven't suggested to remove immediately the topology checker,
but just said that the redundancy with the python geometry checker and
now with the new geometry checker is very puzzling for final users, so
one way or another we should get rid of it (the redundancy).

Moreover the new tool can fix geometries, and this is of course a
must. All the mentioned tools have issues: the topology checker with
reprojected layers and false positives in particular but also the new
geometry checker has a few ones, see for example
http://hub.qgis.org/issues/13535

cheers!

-- G --
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geometry Checker contra Topology Checker

Sandro Mani


On 08.10.2015 16:19, Giovanni Manghi wrote:

>>>> We also should move the first one to the analysis library, so that the
>>>> routines are accessible by plugins and processing framework.... Just
>>>> another item on the TODO list!
>>> sure, big improvement. better opening a ticket?
>>> Giovanni, could you please add tickets for the missing features of the
>>> new plugin, and one for the removal of previous plugins?
>>> all the best, and thanks.
>> I must say that I like more the concept of rules in Topology Checker
>> instead of one big dialog used in Geometry Checker. Both from UI and
>> programming point of view. It is more flexible and extensible. I am
>> curious why a new plugin was started instead of improvement of the old
>> one. I don't think that the Topology Checker should be simply removed
>> until we have something similar in terms of definition and
>> implementation of rules.
>
> Hi, I haven't suggested to remove immediately the topology checker,
> but just said that the redundancy with the python geometry checker and
> now with the new geometry checker is very puzzling for final users, so
> one way or another we should get rid of it (the redundancy).
>
> Moreover the new tool can fix geometries, and this is of course a
> must. All the mentioned tools have issues: the topology checker with
> reprojected layers and false positives in particular but also the new
> geometry checker has a few ones, see for example
> http://hub.qgis.org/issues/13535
>
Yep - as mentioned in the original PR, the port to the new geometry core
is pretty fresh and it didn't get as much testing as our previous
version based on the old geometry core. So any error reports are
welcome, I'll look at fixing any outstanding issues.

Thanks
Sandro
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geometry Checker contra Topology Checker

ginetto
Hi

today someone asked me where to invest public development funds
enhancing some topology check instruments (not necessarily QGIS)

they have the doubt about if was better invest in Topology Checher or
Geometry Checker (or something else)

would make sense to invest merging the two plugins, new geometry
engine for Geometry Checker with the UI and use cases of the Topology
Checker?

regards,
Luigi Pirelli

**************************************************************************************************
* Boundless QGIS Support/Development: lpirelli AT boundlessgeo DOT com
* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
* Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
* GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
* Mastering QGIS:
https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/mastering-qgis
**************************************************************************************************


On 8 October 2015 at 16:23, Sandro Mani <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On 08.10.2015 16:19, Giovanni Manghi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We also should move the first one to the analysis library, so that the
>>>>> routines are accessible by plugins and processing framework.... Just
>>>>> another item on the TODO list!
>>>>
>>>> sure, big improvement. better opening a ticket?
>>>> Giovanni, could you please add tickets for the missing features of the
>>>> new plugin, and one for the removal of previous plugins?
>>>> all the best, and thanks.
>>>
>>> I must say that I like more the concept of rules in Topology Checker
>>> instead of one big dialog used in Geometry Checker. Both from UI and
>>> programming point of view. It is more flexible and extensible. I am
>>> curious why a new plugin was started instead of improvement of the old
>>> one. I don't think that the Topology Checker should be simply removed
>>> until we have something similar in terms of definition and
>>> implementation of rules.
>>
>>
>> Hi, I haven't suggested to remove immediately the topology checker,
>> but just said that the redundancy with the python geometry checker and
>> now with the new geometry checker is very puzzling for final users, so
>> one way or another we should get rid of it (the redundancy).
>>
>> Moreover the new tool can fix geometries, and this is of course a
>> must. All the mentioned tools have issues: the topology checker with
>> reprojected layers and false positives in particular but also the new
>> geometry checker has a few ones, see for example
>> http://hub.qgis.org/issues/13535
>>
> Yep - as mentioned in the original PR, the port to the new geometry core is
> pretty fresh and it didn't get as much testing as our previous version based
> on the old geometry core. So any error reports are welcome, I'll look at
> fixing any outstanding issues.
>
> Thanks
> Sandro
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Geometry Checker contra Topology Checker

Sandro Mani


On 14.01.2016 13:48, Luigi Pirelli wrote:

> Hi
>
> today someone asked me where to invest public development funds
> enhancing some topology check instruments (not necessarily QGIS)
>
> they have the doubt about if was better invest in Topology Checher or
> Geometry Checker (or something else)
>
> would make sense to invest merging the two plugins, new geometry
> engine for Geometry Checker with the UI and use cases of the Topology
> Checker?
So from a geometry checker point of view, the big thing it misses
compared to the topology checker plugin is support for checking multiple
layers at once.

The UI at the moment is indeed one big block, but the code underneath is
very modular, and it is pretty easy to make a more "test-set" oriented UI.

Just my two cents

Sandro


_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[hidden email]
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer