-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 901
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
API: how to expose coverage_union? #3117
Comments
I would guess it was just incorrectly implemented in shapely (pygeos) and nobody ever noticed? |
Indeed, I think the way the two arrays in Anyway, for the topic of "unary_union", the relevant function is I agree that for this use case, we can add some "method" keyword to I think there theoretically can be a use case for the element-wise |
Opened shapely/shapely#1963 on the shapely side |
I am wondering how (and if) do we want to expose
shapely.coverage_union
because the way it behaves on shapely side is super weird. The function assumes two arrays, that are of the same length but does not return a row-wise union asshapely.union
does but a single (Multi)Polygon as a union of all of it. Geometries from array a, geometries from array b, all merged to a single geometry.What I don't understand is the use case for such a function. The assumption here is that polygons form a coverage. Then when would I use
coverage_union
with its expectation of aligned arrays overcoverage_union_all
on concatenated arrays? The outcome is exactly the same? Why doesshapely.coverage_union
exists, especially since it is implemented asreturn coverage_union_all([a, b], **kwargs)
?My suggestion is to not expose it on geopandas side and expose only
coverage_union_all
withinunion_all
via a keyword.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: