-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 900
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: change the behaviour of delaunay_triangles to consider all geometries together #3273
Conversation
CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
@@ -70,6 +70,9 @@ Backwards incompatible API changes: | |||
the previous active geometry column name. This means that if the new and old names are | |||
different, then both columns will be preserved in the GeoDataFrame. To replicate the previous | |||
behaviour, you can instead call `gdf.set_geometry(ser.rename(gdf.active_geometry_name))` (#3237). | |||
- `delaunay_triangles` now consider all geometries together when creating the Delaunay trianguation | |||
instead of performing the operation element-wise (#3273) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe mention the "If you want to generate a Delaunay triangles for each geometry separately, use :func:shapely.delaunay_triangles
instead." as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks Martin!
As an aside, I wonder if it'd be good to consider reorganising the docs pages for these "all geometries together" apis so they sit collectively under one heading, to make it clearer at a glance we've made a distinction about how they api should map to a geoseries, and it's not just verbatim porting of shapely
Co-authored-by: Matt Richards <45483497+m-richards@users.noreply.github.com>
might be a good idea. I'll make a note to do a follow-up once all shapely parity PRs are in. |
Ensuring the consistent API with #3177.
This is currently a hard-breaking change as the method has been released as part of 0.14. It is a bit unfortunate but seems to be better than introducing a deprecation period after which we would do a hard break anyway.