| 590 | | '''What did you get done this week?''' |
| 591 | | * Revised proposal for creating distance surface based on the comments and discussions with Pierre. |
| 592 | | |
| 593 | | ''' What do you plan on doing next week?''' |
| 594 | | * Revise the proposal from last week according to the feedback from the mentor |
| 595 | | |
| 596 | | '''Are you blocked on anything?''' |
| 597 | | * Pierre's comments and feedbacks are very helpful in guiding me through the problems I've encountered. |
| | 590 | '''What did you get done this week?''' & '''Are you blocked on anything?''' |
| | 591 | * Posted project to postgis-devel hoping to get feedback and suggestions from the community |
| | 592 | * Discussed with mentor and people from postgis-devel list. Found myself got blocked at this point: |
| | 593 | <br> |
| | 594 | As to the source dat, I think I would agree that we don't really want to rasterize the source geometries because we want to utilize the vector/raster seamless interactions featured and provided by PostGIS Raster. The solution I could think of was to calculate the distance based on the coordinates of the source geometries and the coordinates of the center of the resulted pixel derived from georeferencing info and then create a raster with those distance values as the pixel values. |
| | 595 | <br> |
| | 596 | Now with the feedback from the mentor and the list, I think I got confused about whether we want to avoid creating intermediate raster layer from rasterizing |
| | 597 | source geometries or not. |
| | 598 | <br> |
| | 599 | I hope I can work this out as soon as possible with the help from the mentor and to proceed on next steps. |
