The two most common point in polygon test methods (Ray casting method and Winding number method) does not work in my case, when the polygon looks like below:
As you can see, the polygon is splitted by the boundaries of coordinate system. Points A and B are inside, C is outside. All of the methods posted in other threads failed for such polygon. Any idea or a good algorithm? A working C# implementation would be really helpful!
In the meantime I've found the solution.
But first a better visualization of the problem, below is the polygon displayed on the surface of a cylinder, where the vertical dashed line represent both beginning and end of X coordinate range of values:
The original polygon must be divided into 2 subpolygons by the coordinate system boundary "line" and algorithm must be executed on those 2 subpolygons.
For drawing or any visualization however still the original polygon must be used.
Related
is there any way to triangulate the position of an object if I have the distance to the object from three points without direction that are in a line?
that is I have the points (0,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,2,0) and point x that is 1.7,1.3, 1.7 away from the respective measuring points.
Is there a way to eliminate the ghost point if you are limited to straight line measurements?
Kind regards and appreciation for any assistance.
You can measure the distances from the object to as many points on the line as you like; if you mirror-reflect the object across the line, the new object will have all the same distances as the old one. To distinguish these two points you must take some kind of measurement that is not mirror-symmetric across the line (which distance to any point on the line is).
I have a map of a mountainous landscape, http://skimap.org/data/989/60/1218033025.jpg. It contains a number of known points, the lat-longs of which can be easily found out using Google maps. I wish to be able to pin any latitude longitude coordinate on the map, of course within the bounds of the landscape.
For this, I tried an approach that seems to be largely failing. I assumed the map to be equivalent to an aerial photograph of the Swiss landscape, without any info about the altitude or other coordinates of the camera. So, I assumed the plane perpendicular to the camera lens normal to be Ax+By+Cz-d=0.
I attempt to find the plane constants, using the known points. I fix my origin at a point, with z=0 at the sea level. I take two known points in the landscape, and using the equation for a line in 3D, I find the length of the projection of this line segment joining the two known points, on the plane. I multiply it by another constant K to account for the resizing of this length on a static 2d representation of this 3D image. The length between the two points on a 2d static representation of this image on this screen can be easily found in pixels, and the actual length of the line joining the two points, can be easily found, since I can calculate the distance between the two points with their lat-longs, and their heights above sea level.
So, I end up with an equation directly relating the distance between the two points on the screen 2d representation, lets call it Ls, and the actual length in the landscape, L. I have many other known points, so plugging them into the equation should give me values of the 4 constants. For this, I needed 8 known points (known parameters being their name, lat-long, and heights above sea level), one being my orogin, and the second being a fixed reference point. The rest 6 points generate a system of 6 linear equations in A^2, B^2, C^2, AB, BC and CA. Solving the system using a online tool, I get the result that the system has a unique solution with all 6 constants being 0.
So, it seems that the assumption that the map is equivalent to an aerial photograph taken from an aircraft, is faulty. Can someone please give me some pointers or any other ideas to get this to work? Do open street maps have a Mercator projection?
I would say that this impossible to do in an automatic way. The skimap should be considered as an image rather than a map, a map is an projection of the real world into one plane, since this doesn't fit skimaps very well they are drawn instead.
The best way is probably to manually define a lot of points in the skimap with known or estimated coordinates and use them to estimate the points betwween. To get an acceptable result you probably have to assign coordinates to each pixel in the skimap.
You could do something like the following: http://magazin.unic.com/en/2012/02/16/making-of-interactive-mobile-piste-map-by-laax/
I am solving the exact same issue. It is pretty hard and lots of maths. Taking me a few weeks to solve it. Interpolation is the key as well with lots of manual mapping. I would say that for a ski mountain it will take at least 1000/1500 points to be able to get the very basic. So, not a trivial task unless you can automate the collection of these points (what I am doing!) ;)
I have a set of dense, irregurarly distributed 2D points ("scattered all over the place"). They can be stored in a single MULTIPOINT WKT object including "holes" or - if needed - as delaunay triangles.
How would you convert this into a polygon, i.e. one outer boundary and zero, one or more inner boundaries?
P.S. It's not the largest enclosing polygon I'm looking for (that would be solved by ConvexHull or ConcaveHull). I'm looking for a true polygon with the same shape as the scattered point set (including inner boundary).
Your question reads to me like “find a polygon which has a given set of points as vertices.” Is that interpretation correct?
If so, you can do the following: Create the convex hull of your points. Remove those points from consideration, and take the convex hull of the remaining points. Proceed in this fashion until there are no more remaining points. The intermediate result will be a sequence of convex polygones nested inside one another. You can turn them into a single polygon by connecting each subsequent pair of polygons. You connect two polygons by removing an edge from each, and connecting the resulting endpoints ”the other way round”. Some care has to be taken that these connections don't overlap anything else, but that shouldn't be too hard.
Note that there are many possible results fulfilling the specification as I read it. If you need a specific one, you'll have to give details on the criteria for that choice.
Use QHull: http://www.qhull.org/
It is the de facto standard for this sort of thing.
I am trying to find sphere that surly encompasses given list of points.
Points will have x, y and z co-ordinate[Points are in 3D].
Actually I am trying to find new three points based on given list of points by some calculations like find MinX,MaxX ,MinY,MaxY,and MinZ and MaxZ and do some operation and find new three points
And I will draw sphere from these three points.
And I will also taking all these three points on the diameter of sphere so I have a unique sphere.
Is there any standard way for finding encompassing sphere of given list of points?
Yes, the standard algorithm is Welzl's algorithm (assuming you want the minimal sphere around your points). Particularly the improved version of Gaertner is very useful, robust and numerically stable! It handles all the degenerate cases well too.
At its core, the algorithm permutes the points (randomly) to find the 1-4 points that lie on the boundary of the sphere. It's basically a clever trial-and-error algorithm. From these points, you can find the center by finding a point that has the same distance to all those points. Gärtner's version uses an improved numerical device to find the center. Also, it employs an extra pivoting step that presumably makes the algorithm work better for a large number of input points.
If all you want is a sphere around three points, I suggest you still use Gärtners "device" to compute the circumsphere of the triangle. Otherwise, the method will probably degenerate easily (i.e. when the triangle is very flat).
Do you need 3 points, or any number of points?
If you only need the answer for 3 points, each pair of points defines a line segment. Take the longest line segment. Take a sphere centered at the middle of that line segment, whose radius is half the length of the line segment. There are two cases.
The third point is inside of that initial sphere. If so, then you have the smallest sphere.
The third point is outside of that initial sphere. Then the solution at Find Circum Center of Three point of Triangle [Not using Compass] will give you the center of the smallest sphere containing those 3 points.
If you need an arbitrary number of points, I'd do some sort of iterative approximation algorithm. Since you don't seem like you need that, I won't work out the details.
I'm looking for a very simple algorithm for computing the polygon intersection/clipping.
That is, given polygons P, Q, I wish to find polygon T which is contained in P and in Q, and I wish T to be maximal among all possible polygons.
I don't mind the run time (I have a few very small polygons), I can also afford getting an approximation of the polygons' intersection (that is, a polygon with less points, but which is still contained in the polygons' intersection).
But it is really important for me that the algorithm will be simple (cheaper testing) and preferably short (less code).
edit: please note, I wish to obtain a polygon which represent the intersection. I don't need only a boolean answer to the question of whether the two polygons intersect.
I understand the original poster was looking for a simple solution, but unfortunately there really is no simple solution.
Nevertheless, I've recently created an open-source freeware clipping library (written in Delphi, C++ and C#) which clips all kinds of polygons (including self-intersecting ones). This library is pretty simple to use: https://github.com/AngusJohnson/Clipper2
You could use a Polygon Clipping algorithm to find the intersection between two polygons. However these tend to be complicated algorithms when all of the edge cases are taken into account.
One implementation of polygon clipping that you can use your favorite search engine to look for is Weiler-Atherton. wikipedia article on Weiler-Atherton
Alan Murta has a complete implementation of a polygon clipper GPC.
Edit:
Another approach is to first divide each polygon into a set of triangles, which are easier to deal with. The Two-Ears Theorem by Gary H. Meisters does the trick. This page at McGill does a good job of explaining triangle subdivision.
If you use C++, and don't want to create the algorithm yourself, you can use Boost.Geometry. It uses an adapted version of the Weiler-Atherton algorithm mentioned above.
You have not given us your representation of a polygon. So I am choosing (more like suggesting) one for you :)
Represent each polygon as one big convex polygon, and a list of smaller convex polygons which need to be 'subtracted' from that big convex polygon.
Now given two polygons in that representation, you can compute the intersection as:
Compute intersection of the big convex polygons to form the big polygon of the intersection. Then 'subtract' the intersections of all the smaller ones of both to get a list of subracted polygons.
You get a new polygon following the same representation.
Since convex polygon intersection is easy, this intersection finding should be easy too.
This seems like it should work, but I haven't given it more deeper thought as regards to correctness/time/space complexity.
Here's a simple-and-stupid approach: on input, discretize your polygons into a bitmap. To intersect, AND the bitmaps together. To produce output polygons, trace out the jaggy borders of the bitmap and smooth the jaggies using a polygon-approximation algorithm. (I don't remember if that link gives the most suitable algorithms, it's just the first Google hit. You might check out one of the tools out there to convert bitmap images to vector representations. Maybe you could call on them without reimplementing the algorithm?)
The most complex part would be tracing out the borders, I think.
Back in the early 90s I faced something like this problem at work, by the way. I muffed it: I came up with a (completely different) algorithm that would work on real-number coordinates, but seemed to run into a completely unfixable plethora of degenerate cases in the face of the realities of floating-point (and noisy input). Perhaps with the help of the internet I'd have done better!
I have no very simple solution, but here are the main steps for the real algorithm:
Do a custom double linked list for the polygon vertices and
edges. Using std::list won't do because you must swap next and
previous pointers/offsets yourself for a special operation on the
nodes. This is the only way to have simple code, and this will give
good performance.
Find the intersection points by comparing each pair of edges. Note
that comparing each pair of edge will give O(N²) time, but improving
the algorithm to O(N·logN) will be easy afterwards. For some pair of
edges (say a→b and c→d), the intersection point is found by using
the parameter (from 0 to 1) on edge a→b, which is given by
tₐ=d₀/(d₀-d₁), where d₀ is (c-a)×(b-a) and d₁ is (d-a)×(b-a). × is
the 2D cross product such as p×q=pₓ·qᵧ-pᵧ·qₓ. After having found tₐ,
finding the intersection point is using it as a linear interpolation
parameter on segment a→b: P=a+tₐ(b-a)
Split each edge adding vertices (and nodes in your linked list)
where the segments intersect.
Then you must cross the nodes at the intersection points. This is
the operation for which you needed to do a custom double linked
list. You must swap some pair of next pointers (and update the
previous pointers accordingly).
Then you have the raw result of the polygon intersection resolving algorithm. Normally, you will want to select some region according to the winding number of each region. Search for polygon winding number for an explanation on this.
If you want to make a O(N·logN) algorithm out of this O(N²) one, you must do exactly the same thing except that you do it inside of a line sweep algorithm. Look for Bentley Ottman algorithm. The inner algorithm will be the same, with the only difference that you will have a reduced number of edges to compare, inside of the loop.
The way I worked about the same problem
breaking the polygon into line segments
find intersecting line using IntervalTrees or LineSweepAlgo
finding a closed path using GrahamScanAlgo to find a closed path with adjacent vertices
Cross Reference 3. with DinicAlgo to Dissolve them
note: my scenario was different given the polygons had a common vertice. But Hope this can help
If you do not care about predictable run time you could try by first splitting your polygons into unions of convex polygons and then pairwise computing the intersection between the sub-polygons.
This would give you a collection of convex polygons such that their union is exactly the intersection of your starting polygons.
If the polygons are not aligned then they have to be aligned. I would do this by finding the centre of the polygon (average in X, average in Y) then incrementally rotating the polygon by matrix transformation, project the points to one of the axes and use the angle of minimum stdev to align the shapes (you could also use principal components). For finding the intersection, a simple algorithm would be define a grid of points. For each point maintain a count of points inside one polygon, or the other polygon or both (union) (there are simple & fast algorithms for this eg. http://wiki.unity3d.com/index.php?title=PolyContainsPoint). Count the points polygon1 & polygon2, divide by the amount of points in polygon1 or Polygon2 and you have a rough (depending on the grid sampling) estimate of proportion of polygons overlap. The intersection area would be given by the points corresponding to an AND operation.
eg.
function get_polygon_intersection($arr, $user_array)
{
$maxx = -999; // choose sensible limits for your application
$maxy = -999;
$minx = 999;
$miny = 999;
$intersection_count = 0;
$not_intersected = 0;
$sampling = 20;
// find min, max values of polygon (min/max variables passed as reference)
get_array_extent($arr, $maxx, $maxy, $minx, $miny);
get_array_extent($user_array, $maxx, $maxy, $minx, $miny);
$inc_x = $maxx-$minx/$sampling;
$inc_y = $maxy-$miny/$sampling;
// see if x,y is within poly1 and poly2 and count
for($i=$minx; $i<=$maxx; $i+= $inc_x)
{
for($j=$miny; $j<=$maxy; $j+= $inc_y)
{
$in_arr = pt_in_poly_array($arr, $i, $j);
$in_user_arr = pt_in_poly_array($user_array, $i, $j);
if($in_arr && $in_user_arr)
{
$intersection_count++;
}
else
{
$not_intersected++;
}
}
}
// return score as percentage intersection
return 100.0 * $intersection_count/($not_intersected+$intersection_count);
}
This can be a huge approximation depending on your polygons, but here's one :
Compute the center of mass for each
polygon.
Compute the min or max or average
distance from each point of the
polygon to the center of mass.
If C1C2 (where C1/2 is the center of the first/second polygon) >= D1 + D2 (where D1/2 is the distance you computed for first/second polygon) then the two polygons "intersect".
Though, this should be very efficient as any transformation to the polygon applies in the very same way to the center of mass and the center-node distances can be computed only once.