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

Introduction of configuration option to simplify GADM tolerance #1147

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

SermishaNarayana
Copy link
Contributor

@SermishaNarayana SermishaNarayana commented Oct 17, 2024

Closes # (if applicable).

Changes proposed in this Pull Request

In this PR, a configuration feature has been added that can be used to quantitatively vary the tolerance levels of GADM shapes simplification.

Checklist

  • I consent to the release of this PR's code under the AGPLv3 license and non-code contributions under CC0-1.0 and CC-BY-4.0.
  • I tested my contribution locally and it seems to work fine.
  • Code and workflow changes are sufficiently documented.
  • Newly introduced dependencies are added to envs/environment.yaml and doc/requirements.txt.
  • Changes in configuration options are added in all of config.default.yaml and config.tutorial.yaml.
  • Add a test config or line additions to test/ (note tests are changing the config.tutorial.yaml)
  • Changes in configuration options are also documented in doc/configtables/*.csv and line references are adjusted in doc/configuration.rst and doc/tutorial.rst.
  • A note for the release notes doc/release_notes.rst is amended in the format of previous release notes, including reference to the requested PR.

@SermishaNarayana SermishaNarayana changed the title Simplify GADM tolerance Introduction of configuration option to simplify GADM tolerance Oct 17, 2024
Copy link
Member

@davide-f davide-f left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hello @SermishaNarayana :D

The functionality of this PR is great and basically ready to merge; as a summary of last talks, the missing element was to add the minarea option (see argument of _simplify_polys) and then it is ready to go.
Probably it is better to first finalize the sister #1138 PR , to solve conflicts that may arise.

What do you think?

@davide-f
Copy link
Member

Hello @SermishaNarayana :D Just pinging to catch on the status of this PR :)

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants