You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As the diagram shows, find_geodesic_path_poly will generate something unsatisfactory when there's overlap in the dijkstraPath. I remember the original author of the papar said that there's some problem when overlap / knot / loop presents in the initial path.
My workaround is to find the edge path by myself, making sure there's no overlapped vertices before calling the function.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The underlying algorithm does support this case, but the API exposed in these python bindings does not. The problem is that you need to communicate the input path in a richer way: that in the overlapping region, the paths sit on top of each other but do not strictly cross.
In the underlying C++ implementation (from geometry-central), we represent paths which are coincident along an edge as a stacked sequence (see Fig 11 in the paper). However passing the polyline does not give the "stacking".
This limitation is not easily fixed. We could give an "advanced" API to communicate the stacking. Or we could write some heuristic functions to infer it in cases like this, where it's pretty obvious what the desired topology of paths are... I don't have plans to immediately implement either of those things, but would gladly accept a PR if anyone wants to try it.
As the diagram shows,
find_geodesic_path_poly
will generate something unsatisfactory when there's overlap in thedijkstraPath
. I remember the original author of the papar said that there's some problem when overlap / knot / loop presents in the initial path.My workaround is to find the edge path by myself, making sure there's no overlapped vertices before calling the function.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: