Adds doc note on @turf/polygonize

[stebogit]

Ref. #819

cc: @NickCis @DenisCarriere

[NickCis]

I'm currently working on an implementation of unary union. Perhaps it's better to wait until I finish it in order to update the docs with a real solution.

[stebogit]

@NickCis do you think you're going to have it done fairly soon? My goal was basically to close #819 to keep the list as short as possible.
We can easily modify again the docs whenever your module is done.

BTW were you thinking to add unary-union to @turf/polygonize to avoid the issue entirely?

[DenisCarriere]

@NickCis Nice! Looks like you are doing some good progress on unary-union, looking forward to see everything 100% tested and good to go.

Feel free to create a TurfJS wrapper for your module, @turf/unary-union which we could then use internally for polygonize.

I'm happy to see that you're dist is a babel ES5 output 👍

[DenisCarriere]

@stebogit My goal was basically to close #819

It's good to update the docs, however this still wouldn't solve the issue.

I really like the idea of the unary-union module, I think it will be used a lot! (well I am personally going to use it! 😄)

[DenisCarriere]

BTW were you thinking to add unary-union to @turf/polygonize to avoid the issue entirely?

I'm pretty sure that would be the intent... I would suggest we do that 👍 .

[stebogit]

It's good to update the docs, however this still wouldn't solve the issue.

Isn't the current issue just a lack of info on a (currently) missing step to avoid the unexpected (but not wrong apparently) result? That's why the docs label.
Otherwise we might label it as bug and keep it open until unary-union is available.
However I would not consider this a bug.

[NickCis]

From a developer point of view, polygonize works as expected, the docs clearly say:

Polygonizes a set of lines that represents edges in a planar graph. Edges must be correctly noded, i.e., they must only meet at their endpoints.

But, from an user's perspective polygonize lacks of unary-union functionality.

I would suggest to keep the issue open until i finish the unary-union implementation. I can't give a estimated time since i'm only working on it on my free time.

[DenisCarriere]

@NickCis Big thanks for those unary-union contributions. 👍

@stebogit We can merge these docs notes and whenever we update polygonize with unary-union we can re-update the docs accordingly.

[rowanwins]

Gday @NickCis

Nice job on the unary union stuff, that would certainly be super useful for our dissolve module.

As an FYI we've also been trying to provide a bit of support to the martinez repo by @w8r which does the full range of clip, difference, union etc. Not sure if you've seen that but with checking out.

And on a side note it would be great if someone could publish a sweepline module to stop people from having to reinvent that wheel as well, I'm sure it would be a handy module for a range of things.

[w8r]

And on a side note it would be great if someone could publish a sweepline module to stop people from having to reinvent that wheel as well, I'm sure it would be a handy module for a range of things.

@ggolikov is working on that right now, btw