FIX: use more robust signed-area check for ring orientation#2665
Open
greglucas wants to merge 1 commit intoSciTools:mainfrom
Open
FIX: use more robust signed-area check for ring orientation#2665greglucas wants to merge 1 commit intoSciTools:mainfrom
greglucas wants to merge 1 commit intoSciTools:mainfrom
Conversation
Self-intersecting rings may produce incorrect is_ccw results from shapely. We can implement the shoelace formula with numpy dot products to determine the orientation ourselves which is more robust.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Self-intersecting rings may produce incorrect is_ccw results from shapely. We can implement the shoelace formula with numpy dot products to determine the net orientation ourselves which is more robust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoelace_formula
@rcomer I thought this might help some of the other boundary attachment arcs (this is a separate issue unfortunately), so I had AI do a quick investigation for me and it came up with this as a solution which made sense to me. Since it didn't solve my other problems I figured I would break it out here into a separate PR. I didn't check against the original geometries, so it would probably be useful to look at those too and make sure this fixes them.
closes #2483