Skip to main content
Question

Creating multiple multi-part polys for overlapping points - not getting what I need...

  • September 28, 2016
  • 8 replies
  • 9 views
P
Forum|alt.badge.img

Hi,

See above:

I have one multi-part area (top piece and lower piece represented as one polygon with gap between them).

I have several points that are located on just the top piece of the multi-part area.

I need to duplicate the entire multi-part area for each point that is within the entire multi-part polygon (not just the top half).

I can't achieve multi-part polygon integrity using PointOnAreaOverlayer and List Exploder since it brakes the multi-part polygon into its 2 components (top and bottom). The area matches for the two points in the top part is placed in ListExploder_Elements and the output for the bottom portion lies within ListExploder__Rejected.

So the multi-part polygon is simplified but that is not what is desired.

Any slick ways to achieve this?

Thanks.

8 replies

P
Forum|alt.badge.img
  • pvaziri
  • Author
  • September 28, 2016
Summarizing the above, is there something akin to what a PointOnMultiPartAreaOverlayer would do, if it existed?

 

 

F

The PointOnAreaOverlayer does not support aggregates. The SpatialRelator does, though, so assuming you only need polygon outputs you could do this:

P
Forum|alt.badge.img
  • pvaziri
  • Author
  • September 28, 2016
francoissimard9 wrote:

The PointOnAreaOverlayer does not support aggregates. The SpatialRelator does, though, so assuming you only need polygon outputs you could do this:

 

Thanks! And thanks for the supporting picture. I'll give it a try tomorrow.
P
Forum|alt.badge.img
  • pvaziri
  • Author
  • September 29, 2016
francoissimard9 wrote:

The PointOnAreaOverlayer does not support aggregates. The SpatialRelator does, though, so assuming you only need polygon outputs you could do this:

Thanks @francoissimard9 so much for the quick solution. @daleatsafe I recommend a user experience improvement. Sometimes a little redundancy goes a long way. The PointOnAreaOverlayer name implies you can use it on any type of area, so why not make it so? Perhaps an option in the parameters which lets the user check/enable something like "keep multi-part areas" or similar verbiage. Even if this is solved by using the SpatialRelator, I believe this functionality needs to also exist in the PointOnAreaOverlayer since that may be the first transformer thought of when dealing with areas and points.
mark2atsafe
Safer
Forum|alt.badge.img+45
  • mark2atsafeSafer
  • Safer
  • September 30, 2016
Hi @pvaziri - actually we've already done this for FME2017! You now have a parameter that controls whether we deaggregate input. If you do it would solve this issue - and you could reaggregate the data again afterwards. I believe we added this to the following transformers:

 

AreaOnAreaOverlayer, Bufferer, Dissolver, DonutHoleExtractor, Intersector, LineOnAreaOverlayer, LineOnLineOverlayer, PointOnAreaOverlayer, PointOnLineOverlayer, PointOnPointOverlayer, SurfaceOnSurfaceOverlayer, AreaBuilder, LineJoiner, MinimumAreaForcer, Triangulator

 

mark2atsafe
Safer
Forum|alt.badge.img+45
  • mark2atsafeSafer
  • Safer
  • September 30, 2016
pvaziri wrote:
Thanks @francoissimard9 so much for the quick solution. @daleatsafe I recommend a user experience improvement. Sometimes a little redundancy goes a long way. The PointOnAreaOverlayer name implies you can use it on any type of area, so why not make it so? Perhaps an option in the parameters which lets the user check/enable something like "keep multi-part areas" or similar verbiage. Even if this is solved by using the SpatialRelator, I believe this functionality needs to also exist in the PointOnAreaOverlayer since that may be the first transformer thought of when dealing with areas and points.
Hi @pvaziri - actually we've already done this for FME2017! You now have a parameter that controls whether we deaggregate input. If you do it would solve this issue - and you could reaggregate the data again afterwards. I believe we added this to the following transformers:

 

AreaOnAreaOverlayer, Bufferer, Dissolver, DonutHoleExtractor, Intersector, LineOnAreaOverlayer, LineOnLineOverlayer, PointOnAreaOverlayer, PointOnLineOverlayer, PointOnPointOverlayer, SurfaceOnSurfaceOverlayer, AreaBuilder, LineJoiner, MinimumAreaForcer, Triangulator

 

P
Forum|alt.badge.img
  • pvaziri
  • Author
  • September 30, 2016
mark2atsafe wrote:
Hi @pvaziri - actually we've already done this for FME2017! You now have a parameter that controls whether we deaggregate input. If you do it would solve this issue - and you could reaggregate the data again afterwards. I believe we added this to the following transformers:

 

AreaOnAreaOverlayer, Bufferer, Dissolver, DonutHoleExtractor, Intersector, LineOnAreaOverlayer, LineOnLineOverlayer, PointOnAreaOverlayer, PointOnLineOverlayer, PointOnPointOverlayer, SurfaceOnSurfaceOverlayer, AreaBuilder, LineJoiner, MinimumAreaForcer, Triangulator

 

Very nice. Thanks!

 

 

P
Forum|alt.badge.img
  • pvaziri
  • Author
  • September 30, 2016
francoissimard9 wrote:

The PointOnAreaOverlayer does not support aggregates. The SpatialRelator does, though, so assuming you only need polygon outputs you could do this:

Very nice. Thanks!

 

 

Reply


Helpful Members This Week

Community Stats

31,479
Posts
119,341
Replies
39,098
Members

Latest FME

Terms & ConditionsCookie settingsAccessibility statement

Cookie policy

We use cookies to enhance and personalize your experience. If you accept you agree to our full cookie policy. Learn more about our cookies.

 
Cookie settings
A product of
Safe Software respectfully acknowledges that we live, learn and work on the traditional and unceded territories of the Kwantlen, Katzie, and Semiahmoo First Nations.