Opened 4 years ago
Last modified 3 years ago
#4868 new enhancement
ST_InteriorsIntersect(geometry, geometry)
| Reported by: | strk | Owned by: | pramsey |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | medium | Milestone: | PostGIS GEOS |
| Component: | postgis | Version: | 2.5.x -- EOL |
| Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
For finally naming a relation currently lacking a name (often confused with ST_Overlaps).
The relate pattern for this, as also written in the PostGIS Manual would be T** *** ***
See also #4867 for doing this at the topological level
Change History (5)
comment:1 by , 4 years ago
comment:2 by , 4 years ago
Note that this is the condition required for a set of Polygons to form a non-overlapping coverage, and for a set of LineStrings to form a non-crossing linear network.
Version 0, edited 4 years ago by (next)
comment:3 by , 4 years ago
Exactly, this is where I'm coming from. It's been suggested that we enhance AddTopoGeometryColumn to optionally add an exclusive constraint on areal tables to refuse overlaps for surfaces… (in this case we'd be using the TopoGeometry based one ticketed at #4867)
comment:4 by , 4 years ago
| Summary: | ST_InteriorIntersects(geometry, geometry) → ST_InteriorsIntersect(geometry, geometry) |
|---|
comment:5 by , 3 years ago
| Milestone: | PostGIS 3.2.0 → PostGIS GEOS |
|---|
Note:
See TracTickets
for help on using tickets.
Having this as a separate named predicate might allow for some specific optimizations.