Determine compass direction from one lat/lon to the other - algorithm

Does anyone have an algorithm to determine the direction from one lat/lon to another (pseudo-code):
CalculateHeading( lat1, lon1, lat2, long2 ) returns string heading
Where heading is e.g. NW, SW, E, etc.
Basically, I have two points on a map and I want to get a general idea of the direction taking into account that 50 miles East and one mile North is simply East and not Northeast.

This site has the basic algorithm:
// in javascript, not hard to translate...
var y = Math.sin(dLon) * Math.cos(lat2);
var x = Math.cos(lat1)*Math.sin(lat2) -
Math.sin(lat1)*Math.cos(lat2)*Math.cos(dLon);
var brng = Math.atan2(y, x).toDeg();
UPDATED: See here for complete algorith Mapping Math and Javascript
That'll give you a number between 0 and 360 then it's just a matter of having a simple lookup:
var bearings = ["NE", "E", "SE", "S", "SW", "W", "NW", "N"];
var index = brng - 22.5;
if (index < 0)
index += 360;
index = parseInt(index / 45);
return(bearings[index]);
It's important to note that your bearing actually changes as you move around the earth. The algorithm above shows you initial bearing, but if you're traveling a long distance, your bearing to be significantly different when you reach the destination (if you're only traveling a short distance [< a few hundred kms] then it probably won't change enough to be a concern).

Do you remember your trig functions? I.e. SOHCAHTOA:
SOH: Sin(θ) = Opposite over Hypotenuse
CAH: Cos(θ) = Adjacent over Hypotenuse
TOA: Tan(θ) = Opposite over Adjacent
In pseudo-code:
function getDir(lat1, long1, lat2, long2) {
margin = π/90; // 2 degree tolerance for cardinal directions
o = lat1 - lat2;
a = long1 - long2;
angle = atan2(o,a);
if (angle > -margin && angle < margin):
return "E";
elseif (angle > π/2 - margin && angle < π/2 + margin):
return "N";
elseif (angle > π - margin && angle < -π + margin):
return "W";
elseif (angle > -π/2 - margin && angle < -π/2 + margin):
return "S";
}
if (angle > 0 && angle < π/2) {
return "NE";
} elseif (angle > π/2 && angle < π) {
return "NW";
} elseif (angle > -π/2 && angle < 0) {
return "SE";
} else {
return "SW";
}
}
Edit 1:
As Pete and Dean pointed out, this does not take into account the curvature of the Earth. For more accurate calculations for points away from the equator, you'll need to use spherical triangle formulas, as used in Dean's answer.
Edit 2:
Another correction; as Pete noted, arctan() does not give the correct angles, as -1/-1 and 1/1 are the same (as are -1/1 and 1/-1). arctan2(y, x) is a two argument variation of arctan() that is designed to compensate for this. arctan() has a range of (-π, π], positive for y >= 0 and negative for y < 0.

Convert to a numeric angle and use the result to look up the text. For example, -22.5..+22.5 = N. +22.5..67.5 = NE, 67.5..112.5 = E, etc. Of course, that's assuming you're using only N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW -- if you decide (for example) to go with the old "32 points of the compass", each text string obviously represents a smaller range.

Related

How to draw a square in a 2d matrix given two opposite points

I am given the coordinates of two opposite points of a square (say the points A and C in a square ABCD) and I need to draw the square as ASCII where each character represents a point in a 2D matrix : ' ' (space) for empty and 'X' for full and '\n' is obviously end of line and beginning of the next line. The square might be rotated. How can I do this ?
Now thanks to #avysk's answer in this SoftwareEngineering Question, I could determine the 2 missing points of the square (I was apparently asking in the wrong forum as the question was put on hold).
Now I was thinking because the matrix isn't supposed to be too big, I would iterate through every point of the matrix and have a condition such as
for (y = 0; y < height; y++) {
for (x = 0; x < width; x++) {
matrix[y][x] = (in_square(x, y, array_of_4_points)) ? 'X' : ' ';
}
}
I'm missing the logic for the in_square function.
You can do this with dot products, and there's no need to find B and D.
If you project the point (call it P) onto the diagonal, then if the distance from the point to the diagonal is less than or equal to the distance from the projected point to the closest corner (A or C) then it's inside the square. This assumes "on the line is in".
First, find out how far away from A the point is in the direction of AC. The value must be positive or else the projected point on the diagonal is outside of the segment between A and C.
bool in_square(Point P, Point A, Point C)
{
float dot1 = ((P.x - A.x) * (C.x - A.x)) + ((P.y - A.y) * (C.y - A.y));
if(dot1 < 0.0f)
return false;
Next, find out how far away from C the point is in the direction of CA and test likewise:
float dot2 = ((P.x - C.x) * (A.x - C.x)) + ((P.y - C.y) * (A.y - C.y));
if(dot2 < 0.0f)
return false;
Now calculate a vector from a point on the diagonal (e.g. A) to the point P, and then take the dot product of it with a vector perpendicular with the diagonal. This gives the distance of P from the diagonal. Compare this distance to the smallest of dot1 and dot2:
float dot3 = ((P.x - A.x) * (C.y - A.y)) + ((P.y - A.y) * (A.x - C.x));
if(dot3 < 0.0f)
dot3 = -dot3; // abs value
if(dot1 < dot2)
return dot3 <= dot1;
else
return dot3 <= dot2;
}
There's no need to normalize any of these vectors because we are just doing comparisons and the length of the vectors (AC, CA, perpendicular to AC) is the same each time.

Least distance from a point to an area

I am trying to find a point (P2) in a closed area that has the minimum distance to a point (P1). The area is built of homogenous pixels, it is not shaped perfectly and it is not necessarily convex. This is basically a problem of reaching an area from the shortest path.
The whole space is a stored in the form of a bitmap in the memory. What is the best method to find P2? Should I go with random search (optimization) methods? Optimization methods do not give the exact minimum but they are faster than brute forcing every pixel of the area. I need to perform thousands of these decisions in a few seconds.
The MinX,MinY,MaxX,MaxY of the area is available.
Thanks.
Here is my code, it's a discrete version using discrete coordinates:
Hint: the method I used to find the circumference of the Area is simple, it's like how do you know the beach from the land ? answer: the beach is covered by Sea from one side, so in my graph matrix, NULL reference is Sea, Points are Land!
Class Point:
class Point
{
public int x;
public int y;
public Point (int X, int Y)
{
this.x = X;
this.y = Y;
}
}
Class Area:
class Area
{
public ArrayList<Point> points;
public Area ()
{
p = new ArrayList<Point>();
}
}
Discrete Distance Utility Class:
class DiscreteDistance
{
public static int distance (Point a, Point b)
{
return Math.sqrt(Math.pow(b.x - a.x,2), Math.pow(b.y - a.y,2))
}
public static int distance (Point a, Area area)
{
ArrayList<Point> cir = circumference(area);
int d = null;
for (Point b : cir)
{
if (d == null || distance(a,b) < d)
{
d = distance(a,b);
}
}
return d;
}
ArrayList<Point> circumference (Area area)
{
int minX = 0;
int minY = 0;
int maxX = 0;
int maxY = 0;
for (Point p : area.points)
{
if (p.x < minX) minX = p.x;
if (p.x > maxX) maxX = p.x;
if (p.y < minY) minY = p.y;
if (p.y > maxY) maxY = p.y;
}
int w = maxX - minX +1;
int h = maxY - minY +1;
Point[][] graph = new Point[w][h];
for (Point p : area.points)
{
graph[p.x - minX][p.y - minY] = p;
}
ArrayList<Point> cir = new ArrayList<Point>();
for (int i=0; i<w; i++)
{
for (int j=0; j<h; j++)
{
if ((i > 0 && graph[i-1][j] == null)
|| (i < (w-1) && graph[i+1][j] == null)
|| (j > 0 && graph[i][j-1] == null)
|| (i < (h-1) && graph[i][j+1] == null))
{
cir.add(graph[i][j]);
}
}
}
return cir;
}
}
We have to assume you know or can easily find at least one pixel address (x0,y0) inside the area. The fastest solution will certainly be to search from this pixel in a straight line, say in the plus x direction Alternately, since you have a bounding box, pick the compass point toward the nearest boundary and go in that direction.
When you find the edge of the region, search depth first along the boundary. For general polygons with self-intersections and/or holes, this will have to be a complete and carefully implemented DFS maintaining a set of already-visited vertices. Only if the polygon is simple will it suffice to remember only the last-visited pixel to avoid doubling back over what's already searched.
During the DFS, compute the distance squared to p1 for each boundary pixel and track the minimum.
Note, if you are really pressed for performance this distance squared can be updated incrementally to replace multiplications with additions. I.e. if you know d2=(x2-x1)^2+(y2-y1)^2 and then increment x2 by 1 to take the next step around the boundary, the new squared distance is
((x2+1) - x1)^2 + (y2-y1)^2 = d2 + 2(x2 - x1) + 1
So you can update d2 with d2 += 2(x2 - x1) + 1. The multiplication by 2 is of course just a left shift, so this is very cheap. There are similar very cheap updates for steps in each direction.
One approach might be to set for an approximate solution by first canculating a triangulation of the area; afterwards, only the corners of the triangles have to be checked. This approach could be beneficial especially if in the many evaluations you plan for, the outside point changes but the shape itself does not change.
You could find the center of the rect of the area, and use a triangle between the two points to find the angle, and then use a function f(x) = mx + b to do the pixel walk until you find a pixel of the area to calculate the distance, and then rotate the angle until you find the shortest path.

Cube on Cube collision detection algorithm?

I'm trying to find the most efficient way to check if 2 arbitrarily sized cubes collide with each other. The sides of the cubes are not necessarily all equal in length (a box is possible). Given these constraints, how could I efficiently check if they collide? (each box has 24 verticies) Thanks
They are axis alligned
Since both boxes are axis-aligned you can just compare their extents:
return (a.max_x() >= b.min_x() and a.min_x() <= b.max_x())
and (a.max_y() >= b.min_y() and a.min_y() <= b.max_y())
and (a.max_z() >= b.min_z() and a.min_z() <= b.max_z())
For a boolean query, use Laurence's answer. It can also be made to work with moving boxes, but then you have to use a binary search to find the intersection point, or the time interval.
Solving the parametric time for intersection on an axis
Another solution if you want movable boxes is to find the parametric time where the intersection happens on each axis separately, with respect to the traveling direction. Let's call the boxes A and B, their extreme points for Min and Max. You only need one direction, because you can subtract A's direction from B's direction and be left with one vector. So you can consider B to be moving and A to be stationary. Let's call the direction D. Solving for t gives:
(for the start of the intersection along D)
Bmax + tEnterD = Amin
tEnterD = Amin - Bmax
tEnter = (Amin - Bmax) / D
(for the end of the intersection along D; the back side of A)
Bmin + tLeaveD = Amax
tLeaveD = Amax - Bmin
tLeave = (Amax - Bmin) / D
Do this check on each axis, and if they all overlap, you have an intersection. If the denominator is zero, you have an infinite overlap or no overlap on that axis. If tEnter is greater than 1 or tLeave is less than zero, then the overlap is further away than the direction lengths, or in the wrong direction.
bool IntersectAxis(float min1, float max1, float min2, float max2,
float diraxis, float& tEnter, float& tLeave)
{
const float intrEps = 1e-9;
/* Carefully check for diraxis==0 using an epsilon. */
if( std::fabs(diraxis) < intrEps ){
if((min1 >= max2) || (max1 <= min2)){
/* No movement in the axis, and they don't overlap,
hence no intersection. */
return false;
} else {
/* Stationary in the axis, with overlap at t=0 to t=1 */
return true;
}
} else {
float start = (min1 - max2) / diraxis;
float leave = (max1 - min2) / diraxis;
/* Swap to make sure our intervals are correct */
if(start > leave)
std::swap(start,leave);
if(start > tEnter)
tEnter = start;
if(leave < tLeave)
tLeave = leave;
if(tEnter > tLeave)
return false;
}
return true;
}
bool Intersect(const AABB& b1, const AABB& b2, Vector3 dir, float& tEnter, float& tLeave)
{
tEnter = 0.0f;
tLeave = 1.0f;
if(IntersectAxis(b1.bmin.x, b1.bmax.x, b2.bmin.x, b2.bmax.x, dir.x, tEnter, tLeave) == false)
return false;
else if(IntersectAxis(b1.bmin.y, b1.bmax.y, b2.bmin.y, b2.bmax.y, dir.y, tEnter, tLeave) == false)
return false;
else if(IntersectAxis(b1.bmin.z, b1.bmax.z, b2.bmin.z, b2.bmax.z, dir.z, tEnter, tLeave) == false)
return false;
else
return true;
}

Getting the computer to realise 360 degrees = 0 degrees, rotating a gun turret

I'm making a game and in it is a computer controlled gun turret.
The gun turret can rotate 360 degrees.
It uses trig to find out the angle it needs to aim the gun (objdeg) and the current angle of the gun is stored in (gundeg)
the following code rotates the gun at a set speed
if (objdeg > gundeg)
{
gundeg++;
}
if (objdeg < gundeg)
{
gundeg--;
}
The problem is that if there is an object at 10 degrees, the gun rotates, shoots and destroys it, if another target appears at 320 degrees, the gun will rotate 310 degrees anticlockwise instead of just rotating 60 degrees clockwise to hit it.
How can I fix my code so it won't act stupidly?
You can avoid division (and mod) entirely if you represent your angles in something referred to as 'BAMS', which stands for Binary Angle Measurement System. The idea is that if you store your angles in an N bit integer, you use the entire range of that integer to represent the angle. That way, there's no need to worry about overflow past 360, because the natural modulo-2^N properties of your representation take care of it for you.
For example, lets say you use 8 bits. This cuts your circle into 256 possible orientations. (You may choose more bits, but 8 is convenient for the example's sake). Let 0x00 stand for 0 degrees, 0x40 means 90 degrees, 0x80 is 180 degrees, and 0xC0 is 270 degrees. Don't worry about the 'sign' bit, again, BAMS is a natural for angles. If you interpret 0xC0 as 'unsigned' and scaled to 360/256 degrees per count, your angle is (+192)(360/256) = +270; but if you interpret 0xC0 as 'signed', your angle is (-64)(360/256)= -90. Notice that -90 and +270 mean the same thing in angular terms.
If you want to apply trig functions to your BAMS angles, you can pre-compute tables. There are tricks to smallen the tables but you can see that the tables aren't all that large. To store an entire sine and cosine table of double precision values for 8-bit BAMS doesn't take more than 4K of memory, chicken feed in today's environment.
Since you mention using this in a game, you probably could get away with 8-bit or 10-bit representations. Any time you add or subtract angles, you can force the result into N bits using a logical AND operation, e.g., angle &= 0x00FF for 8 bits.
FORGOT THE BEST PART (edit)
The turn-right vs turn-left problem is easily solved in a BAMS system. Just take the difference, and make sure to only keep the N meaningful bits. Interpreting the MSB as a sign bit indicates which way you should turn. If the difference is negative, turn the opposite way by the abs() of the difference.
This ugly little C program demonstrates. Try giving it input like 20 10 and 20 30 at first. Then try to fool it by wrapping around the zero point. Give it 20 -10, it will turn left. Give it 20 350, it still turns left. Note that since it's done in 8 bits, that 181 is indistinguishable from 180, so don't be surprised if you feed it 20 201 and it turns right instead of left - in the resolution afforded by eight bits, turning left and turning right in this case are the same. Put in 20 205 and it will go the shorter way.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
#define TOBAMS(x) (((x)/360.0) * 256)
#define TODEGS(b) (((b)/256.0) * 360)
int main(void)
{
double a1, a2; // "real" angles
int b1, b2, b3; // BAMS angles
// get some input
printf("Start Angle ? ");
scanf("%lf", &a1);
printf("Goal Angle ? ");
scanf("%lf", &a2);
b1 = TOBAMS(a1);
b2 = TOBAMS(a2);
// difference increases with increasing goal angle
// difference decreases with increasing start angle
b3 = b2 - b1;
b3 &= 0xff;
printf("Start at %7.2lf deg and go to %7.2lf deg\n", a1, a2);
printf("BAMS are 0x%02X and 0x%02X\n", b1, b2);
printf("BAMS diff is 0x%02X\n", b3);
// check what would be the 'sign bit' of the difference
// negative (msb set) means turn one way, positive the other
if( b3 & 0x80 )
{
// difference is negative; negate to recover the
// DISTANCE to move, since the negative-ness just
// indicates direction.
// cheap 2's complement on an N-bit value:
// invert, increment, trim
b3 ^= -1; // XOR -1 inverts all the bits
b3 += 1; // "add 1 to x" :P
b3 &= 0xFF; // retain only N bits
// difference is already positive, can just use it
printf("Turn left %lf degrees\n", TODEGS(b3));
printf("Turn left %d counts\n", b3);
}
else
{
printf("Turn right %lf degrees\n", TODEGS(b3));
printf("Turn right %d counts\n", b3);
}
return 0;
}
If you need to rotate more than 180 degrees in one direction to aim the turret, then it would be quicker to rotate the other direction.
I would just check for this and then rotate in the appropriate direction
if (objdeg != gundeg)
{
if ((gundeg - objdeg) > 180)
gundeg++;
else
gundeg--;
}
EDIT: New Solution
I have refined my solution based on the feedback in the comments. This determines whether the target is to the 'left or right' of the turret and decides which way to turn. It then inverts this direction if the target is more than 180 degrees away.
if (objdeg != gundeg)
{
int change = 0;
int diff = (gundeg - objdeg)%360;
if (diff < 0)
change = 1;
else
change = -1;
if (Math.Abs(diff) > 180)
change = 0 - change;
gundeg += change;
}
To Normalised to [0,360):
(I.e. a half open range)
Use the modulus operator to perform "get division remainder":
361 % 360
will be 1.
In C/C++/... style languages this would be
gundeg %= 360
Note (thanks to a comment): if gundeg is a floating point type you will need to either use a library function, in C/C++: fmod, or do it yourself (.NET):
double FMod(double a, double b) {
return a - Math.floor(a / b) * b;
}
Which Way To Turn?
Which ever way is shorter (and if turn is 180°, then the answer is arbitrary), in C#, and assuming direction is measured anti-clockwise
TurnDirection WhichWayToTurn(double currentDirection, double targetDirection) {
Debug.Assert(currentDirection >= 0.0 && currentDirection < 360.0
&& targetDirection >= 0.0 && targetDirection < 360.0);
var diff = targetDirection - currentDirection ;
if (Math.Abs(diff) <= FloatEpsilon) {
return TurnDirection.None;
} else if (diff > 0.0) {
return TurnDirection.AntiClockwise;
} else {
return TurnDirection.Clockwise;
}
}
NB. This requires testing.
Note use of assert to confirm pre-condition of normalised angles, and I use an assert because this is an internal function that should not be receiving unverified data. If this were a generally reusable function the argument check should throw an exception or return an error (depending on language).
Also note. to work out things like this there is nothing better than a pencil and paper (my initial version was wrong because I was mixing up using (-180,180] and [0,360).
I tend to favor a solution that
does not have lots of nested if statements
does not assume that either of the two angles are in a particular range, e.g. [0, 360] or [-180, 180]
has a constant execution time
The cross product solution proposed by Krypes meets this criteria, however it is necessary to generate the vectors from the angles first. I believe that JustJeff's BAMS technique also satisfies this criteria. I'll offer another ...
As discussed on Why is modulus different in different programming languages? which refers to the excellent Wikipedia Article, there are many ways to perform the modulo operation. Common implementations round the quotient towards zero or negative infinity.
If however, you round to the nearest integer:
double ModNearestInt(double a, double b) {
return a - b * round(a / b);
}
The has the nice property that the remainder returned is
always in the interval [-b/2, +b/2]
always the shortest distance to zero
So,
double angleToTarget = ModNearestInt(objdeg - gundeg, 360.0);
will be the smallest angle between objdeg and gundeg and the sign will indicate the direction.
Note that (C#) Math.IEEERemainder(objdeg - gundeg, 360.0) or (C++) fmod(objdeg - gundeg, 360.0) does that for you already, i.e. ModNearestInt already exists in the associated math libraries.
Just compare the following:
gundeg - objdeg
objdeg - gundeg
gundeg - objdeg + 360
objdeg - gundeg + 360
and choose the one with minimum absolute value.
Here's a workign C# sample, this will turn the right way. :
public class Rotater
{
int _position;
public Rotater()
{
}
public int Position
{
get
{
return _position;
}
set
{
if (value < 0)
{
_position = 360 + value;
}
else
{
_position = value;
}
_position %= 360;
}
}
public bool RotateTowardsEx(int item)
{
if (item > Position)
{
if (item - Position < 180)
{
Position++;
}
else
{
Position--;
}
return false;
}
else if (Position > item)
{
if (Position - item < 180)
{
Position--;
}
else
{
Position++;
}
return false;
}
else
{
return true;
}
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
do
{
Rotater rot = new Rotater();
Console.Write("Enter Starting Point: ");
var startingPoint = int.Parse(Console.ReadLine());
rot.Position = startingPoint;
int turns = 0;
Console.Write("Enter Item Point: ");
var item = int.Parse(Console.ReadLine());
while (!rot.RotateTowardsEx(item))
{
turns++;
}
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("{0} turns to go from {1} to {2}", turns, startingPoint, item));
} while (Console.ReadLine() != "q");
}
Credit to John Pirie for inspiration
Edit: I wasn't happy with my Position setter, so I cleaned it up
You need to decide whether to rotate left or right, based on which is the shorter distance. Then you'll need to take modulus:
if (objdeg > gundeg)
{
if (objdeg - gundeg < 180)
{
gundeg++;
}
else
{
gundeg--;
}
}
if (objdeg < gundeg)
{
if (gundeg - objdeg < 180)
{
gundeg--;
}
else
{
gundeg++;
}
}
if (gundeg < 0)
{
gundeg += 360;
}
gundeg = gundeg % 360;
Actually, theres an easier way to approach this problem. Cross product of two vectors gives you a vector representing the normal (eg. perpendicular). As an artifact of this, given two vectors a, b, which lie on the xy-plane, a x b = c implies c = (0,0, +-1).
Sign of the z component of c (eg. whether it comes out of, or goes into the xy- plane) depends on whether its a left or right turn around z axis for a to be equal to b.
Vector3d turret
Vector3d enemy
if turret.equals(enemy) return;
Vector3d normal = turret.Cross(enemy);
gundeg += normal.z > 0 ? 1 : -1; // counter clockwise = +ve
Try dividing by 180 using integer division and turning based on even/odd outcome?
749/180 = 4 So you turn clockwise by 29 degrees (749%180)
719/180 = 3 So you turn counterclockwise by 1 degree (180 - 719%180)
The problem is about finding the direction that will give the shortest distance.
However, subtraction can result in negative numbers and that needs to be accounted for.
If you are moving the gun one step at each check, I don't know when you will do the modulus.
And, if you want to move the gun in one step, you would just add/subtract the delta correctly.
To this end Kirschstein seems to be thinking nearest to me.
I am working with an integer in this simple psudo-code.
if (objdeg != gundeg)
{
// we still need to move the gun
delta = gundeg - objdeg
if (delta > 0)
if (unsigned(delta) > 180)
gundeg++;
else
gundeg--;
else // delta < 0
if (unsigned(delta) > 180)
gundeg--;
else
gundeg++;
if (gundeg == 360)
gundeg = 0;
else if (gundeg == -1)
gundeg = 359;
}
Try to work this incrementally with gundeg=10 and objdeg=350 to see how the gundeg will be moved from 10 down to 0 and then 359 down to 350.
Here's how I implemented something similar in a game recently:
double gundeg;
// ...
double normalizeAngle(double angle)
{
while (angle >= 180.0)
{
angle -= 360.0;
}
while (angle < -180.0)
{
angle += 360.0;
}
return angle;
}
double aimAt(double objAngle)
{
double difference = normalizeAngle(objdeg - gundeg);
gundeg = normalizeAngle(gundeg + signum(difference));
}
All angle variables are restricted to -180..+180, which makes this kind of calculation easier.
At the risk of bikeshedding, storing degrees as an integer rather than as its own class might be a case of "primitive obsession". If I recall correctly, the book "The pragmatic programmer" suggested creating a class for storing degrees and doing operations on them.
Here's the short-test pseudo code sample I can think of that answers the problem. It works in your domain of positive angles 0..359 and it handles the edge conditions first prior to handling the 'normal' ones.
if (objdeg >= 180 and gundeg < 180)
gundeg = (gundeg + 359) % 360;
else if (objdeg < 180 and gundeg >= 180)
gundeg = (gundeg + 1) % 360;
else if (objdeg > gundeg)
gundeg = (gundeg + 1) % 360;
else if (objdeg < gundeg)
gundeg = (gundeg + 359) % 360;
else
shootitnow();
This might be a bit late... Probably very late... But I recently had a similar issue and found that this worked just fine in GML.
var diff = angle_difference(gundeg, objdeg)
if (sign(diff)>0){
gundeg --;
}else{
gundeg ++;
}
I had a similar problem in python.
I have a current rotation in degrees and a target rotation in degrees.
The two rotations could be arbitrarily big so I had three goals with my function:
Keep both angles small
Keep the difference between the angles <= 180°
The returned angles must be equivalent to the input angles
I came up with the following:
def rotation_improver(c,t):
"""
c is current rotation, t is target rotation. \n
returns two values that are equivalent to c and t but have values between -360 and 360
"""
ci = c%360
if ci > 180:
ci -= 360
ti = t%360
if not abs(ci-ti) <= 180:
ti -= 360
return ci,ti
It should run flawlessly in c++ with a few syntax changes.
The return values of this general solution can then easily be used to solve any specific problem like using subtraction to get the relative rotation.
I know that this question is very old and has sufficient specific answers but I hope that someone with a similar problem stumbling through the internet can draw inspiration from from my general solution.

How can I determine whether a 2D Point is within a Polygon?

I'm trying to create a fast 2D point inside polygon algorithm, for use in hit-testing (e.g. Polygon.contains(p:Point)). Suggestions for effective techniques would be appreciated.
For graphics, I'd rather not prefer integers. Many systems use integers for UI painting (pixels are ints after all), but macOS, for example, uses float for everything. macOS only knows points and a point can translate to one pixel, but depending on monitor resolution, it might translate to something else. On retina screens half a point (0.5/0.5) is pixel. Still, I never noticed that macOS UIs are significantly slower than other UIs. After all, 3D APIs (OpenGL or Direct3D) also work with floats and modern graphics libraries very often take advantage of GPU acceleration.
Now you said speed is your main concern, okay, let's go for speed. Before you run any sophisticated algorithm, first do a simple test. Create an axis aligned bounding box around your polygon. This is very easy, fast and can already save you a lot of calculations. How does that work? Iterate over all points of the polygon and find the min/max values of X and Y.
E.g. you have the points (9/1), (4/3), (2/7), (8/2), (3/6). This means Xmin is 2, Xmax is 9, Ymin is 1 and Ymax is 7. A point outside of the rectangle with the two edges (2/1) and (9/7) cannot be within the polygon.
// p is your point, p.x is the x coord, p.y is the y coord
if (p.x < Xmin || p.x > Xmax || p.y < Ymin || p.y > Ymax) {
// Definitely not within the polygon!
}
This is the first test to run for any point. As you can see, this test is ultra fast but it's also very coarse. To handle points that are within the bounding rectangle, we need a more sophisticated algorithm. There are a couple of ways how this can be calculated. Which method works also depends on whether the polygon can have holes or will always be solid. Here are examples of solid ones (one convex, one concave):
And here's one with a hole:
The green one has a hole in the middle!
The easiest algorithm, that can handle all three cases above and is still pretty fast is named ray casting. The idea of the algorithm is pretty simple: Draw a virtual ray from anywhere outside the polygon to your point and count how often it hits a side of the polygon. If the number of hits is even, it's outside of the polygon, if it's odd, it's inside.
The winding number algorithm would be an alternative, it is more accurate for points being very close to a polygon line but it's also much slower. Ray casting may fail for points too close to a polygon side because of limited floating point precision and rounding issues, but in reality that is hardly a problem, as if a point lies that close to a side, it's often visually not even possible for a viewer to recognize if it is already inside or still outside.
You still have the bounding box of above, remember? Just pick a point outside the bounding box and use it as starting point for your ray. E.g. the point (Xmin - e/p.y) is outside the polygon for sure.
But what is e? Well, e (actually epsilon) gives the bounding box some padding. As I said, ray tracing fails if we start too close to a polygon line. Since the bounding box might equal the polygon (if the polygon is an axis aligned rectangle, the bounding box is equal to the polygon itself!), we need some padding to make this safe, that's all. How big should you choose e? Not too big. It depends on the coordinate system scale you use for drawing. If your pixel step width is 1.0, then just choose 1.0 (yet 0.1 would have worked as well)
Now that we have the ray with its start and end coordinates, the problem shifts from "is the point within the polygon" to "how often does the ray intersects a polygon side". Therefore we can't just work with the polygon points as before, now we need the actual sides. A side is always defined by two points.
side 1: (X1/Y1)-(X2/Y2)
side 2: (X2/Y2)-(X3/Y3)
side 3: (X3/Y3)-(X4/Y4)
:
You need to test the ray against all sides. Consider the ray to be a vector and every side to be a vector. The ray has to hit each side exactly once or never at all. It can't hit the same side twice. Two lines in 2D space will always intersect exactly once, unless they are parallel, in which case they never intersect. However since vectors have a limited length, two vectors might not be parallel and still never intersect because they are too short to ever meet each other.
// Test the ray against all sides
int intersections = 0;
for (side = 0; side < numberOfSides; side++) {
// Test if current side intersects with ray.
// If yes, intersections++;
}
if ((intersections & 1) == 1) {
// Inside of polygon
} else {
// Outside of polygon
}
So far so well, but how do you test if two vectors intersect? Here's some C code (not tested), that should do the trick:
#define NO 0
#define YES 1
#define COLLINEAR 2
int areIntersecting(
float v1x1, float v1y1, float v1x2, float v1y2,
float v2x1, float v2y1, float v2x2, float v2y2
) {
float d1, d2;
float a1, a2, b1, b2, c1, c2;
// Convert vector 1 to a line (line 1) of infinite length.
// We want the line in linear equation standard form: A*x + B*y + C = 0
// See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_equation
a1 = v1y2 - v1y1;
b1 = v1x1 - v1x2;
c1 = (v1x2 * v1y1) - (v1x1 * v1y2);
// Every point (x,y), that solves the equation above, is on the line,
// every point that does not solve it, is not. The equation will have a
// positive result if it is on one side of the line and a negative one
// if is on the other side of it. We insert (x1,y1) and (x2,y2) of vector
// 2 into the equation above.
d1 = (a1 * v2x1) + (b1 * v2y1) + c1;
d2 = (a1 * v2x2) + (b1 * v2y2) + c1;
// If d1 and d2 both have the same sign, they are both on the same side
// of our line 1 and in that case no intersection is possible. Careful,
// 0 is a special case, that's why we don't test ">=" and "<=",
// but "<" and ">".
if (d1 > 0 && d2 > 0) return NO;
if (d1 < 0 && d2 < 0) return NO;
// The fact that vector 2 intersected the infinite line 1 above doesn't
// mean it also intersects the vector 1. Vector 1 is only a subset of that
// infinite line 1, so it may have intersected that line before the vector
// started or after it ended. To know for sure, we have to repeat the
// the same test the other way round. We start by calculating the
// infinite line 2 in linear equation standard form.
a2 = v2y2 - v2y1;
b2 = v2x1 - v2x2;
c2 = (v2x2 * v2y1) - (v2x1 * v2y2);
// Calculate d1 and d2 again, this time using points of vector 1.
d1 = (a2 * v1x1) + (b2 * v1y1) + c2;
d2 = (a2 * v1x2) + (b2 * v1y2) + c2;
// Again, if both have the same sign (and neither one is 0),
// no intersection is possible.
if (d1 > 0 && d2 > 0) return NO;
if (d1 < 0 && d2 < 0) return NO;
// If we get here, only two possibilities are left. Either the two
// vectors intersect in exactly one point or they are collinear, which
// means they intersect in any number of points from zero to infinite.
if ((a1 * b2) - (a2 * b1) == 0.0f) return COLLINEAR;
// If they are not collinear, they must intersect in exactly one point.
return YES;
}
The input values are the two endpoints of vector 1 (v1x1/v1y1 and v1x2/v1y2) and vector 2 (v2x1/v2y1 and v2x2/v2y2). So you have 2 vectors, 4 points, 8 coordinates. YES and NO are clear. YES increases intersections, NO does nothing.
What about COLLINEAR? It means both vectors lie on the same infinite line, depending on position and length, they don't intersect at all or they intersect in an endless number of points. I'm not absolutely sure how to handle this case, I would not count it as intersection either way. Well, this case is rather rare in practice anyway because of floating point rounding errors; better code would probably not test for == 0.0f but instead for something like < epsilon, where epsilon is a rather small number.
If you need to test a larger number of points, you can certainly speed up the whole thing a bit by keeping the linear equation standard forms of the polygon sides in memory, so you don't have to recalculate these every time. This will save you two floating point multiplications and three floating point subtractions on every test in exchange for storing three floating point values per polygon side in memory. It's a typical memory vs computation time trade off.
Last but not least: If you may use 3D hardware to solve the problem, there is an interesting alternative. Just let the GPU do all the work for you. Create a painting surface that is off screen. Fill it completely with the color black. Now let OpenGL or Direct3D paint your polygon (or even all of your polygons if you just want to test if the point is within any of them, but you don't care for which one) and fill the polygon(s) with a different color, e.g. white. To check if a point is within the polygon, get the color of this point from the drawing surface. This is just a O(1) memory fetch.
Of course this method is only usable if your drawing surface doesn't have to be huge. If it cannot fit into the GPU memory, this method is slower than doing it on the CPU. If it would have to be huge and your GPU supports modern shaders, you can still use the GPU by implementing the ray casting shown above as a GPU shader, which absolutely is possible. For a larger number of polygons or a large number of points to test, this will pay off, consider some GPUs will be able to test 64 to 256 points in parallel. Note however that transferring data from CPU to GPU and back is always expensive, so for just testing a couple of points against a couple of simple polygons, where either the points or the polygons are dynamic and will change frequently, a GPU approach will rarely pay off.
I think the following piece of code is the best solution (taken from here):
int pnpoly(int nvert, float *vertx, float *verty, float testx, float testy)
{
int i, j, c = 0;
for (i = 0, j = nvert-1; i < nvert; j = i++) {
if ( ((verty[i]>testy) != (verty[j]>testy)) &&
(testx < (vertx[j]-vertx[i]) * (testy-verty[i]) / (verty[j]-verty[i]) + vertx[i]) )
c = !c;
}
return c;
}
Arguments
nvert: Number of vertices in the polygon. Whether to repeat the first vertex at the end has been discussed in the article referred above.
vertx, verty: Arrays containing the x- and y-coordinates of the polygon's vertices.
testx, testy: X- and y-coordinate of the test point.
It's both short and efficient and works both for convex and concave polygons. As suggested before, you should check the bounding rectangle first and treat polygon holes separately.
The idea behind this is pretty simple. The author describes it as follows:
I run a semi-infinite ray horizontally (increasing x, fixed y) out from the test point, and count how many edges it crosses. At each crossing, the ray switches between inside and outside. This is called the Jordan curve theorem.
The variable c is switching from 0 to 1 and 1 to 0 each time the horizontal ray crosses any edge. So basically it's keeping track of whether the number of edges crossed are even or odd. 0 means even and 1 means odd.
Here is a C# version of the answer given by nirg, which comes from this RPI professor. Note that use of the code from that RPI source requires attribution.
A bounding box check has been added at the top. However, as James Brown points out, the main code is almost as fast as the bounding box check itself, so the bounding box check can actually slow the overall operation, in the case that most of the points you are checking are inside the bounding box. So you could leave the bounding box check out, or an alternative would be to precompute the bounding boxes of your polygons if they don't change shape too often.
public bool IsPointInPolygon( Point p, Point[] polygon )
{
double minX = polygon[ 0 ].X;
double maxX = polygon[ 0 ].X;
double minY = polygon[ 0 ].Y;
double maxY = polygon[ 0 ].Y;
for ( int i = 1 ; i < polygon.Length ; i++ )
{
Point q = polygon[ i ];
minX = Math.Min( q.X, minX );
maxX = Math.Max( q.X, maxX );
minY = Math.Min( q.Y, minY );
maxY = Math.Max( q.Y, maxY );
}
if ( p.X < minX || p.X > maxX || p.Y < minY || p.Y > maxY )
{
return false;
}
// https://wrf.ecse.rpi.edu/Research/Short_Notes/pnpoly.html
bool inside = false;
for ( int i = 0, j = polygon.Length - 1 ; i < polygon.Length ; j = i++ )
{
if ( ( polygon[ i ].Y > p.Y ) != ( polygon[ j ].Y > p.Y ) &&
p.X < ( polygon[ j ].X - polygon[ i ].X ) * ( p.Y - polygon[ i ].Y ) / ( polygon[ j ].Y - polygon[ i ].Y ) + polygon[ i ].X )
{
inside = !inside;
}
}
return inside;
}
Here is a JavaScript variant of the answer by M. Katz based on Nirg's approach:
function pointIsInPoly(p, polygon) {
var isInside = false;
var minX = polygon[0].x, maxX = polygon[0].x;
var minY = polygon[0].y, maxY = polygon[0].y;
for (var n = 1; n < polygon.length; n++) {
var q = polygon[n];
minX = Math.min(q.x, minX);
maxX = Math.max(q.x, maxX);
minY = Math.min(q.y, minY);
maxY = Math.max(q.y, maxY);
}
if (p.x < minX || p.x > maxX || p.y < minY || p.y > maxY) {
return false;
}
var i = 0, j = polygon.length - 1;
for (i, j; i < polygon.length; j = i++) {
if ( (polygon[i].y > p.y) != (polygon[j].y > p.y) &&
p.x < (polygon[j].x - polygon[i].x) * (p.y - polygon[i].y) / (polygon[j].y - polygon[i].y) + polygon[i].x ) {
isInside = !isInside;
}
}
return isInside;
}
Compute the oriented sum of angles between the point p and each of the polygon apices. If the total oriented angle is 360 degrees, the point is inside. If the total is 0, the point is outside.
I like this method better because it is more robust and less dependent on numerical precision.
Methods that compute evenness of number of intersections are limited because you can 'hit' an apex during the computation of the number of intersections.
EDIT: By The Way, this method works with concave and convex polygons.
EDIT: I recently found a whole Wikipedia article on the topic.
This question is so interesting. I have another workable idea different from other answers to this post. The idea is to use the sum of angles to decide whether the target is inside or outside. Better known as winding number.
Let x be the target point. Let array [0, 1, .... n] be the all the points of the area. Connect the target point with every border point with a line. If the target point is inside of this area. The sum of all angles will be 360 degrees. If not the angles will be less than 360.
Refer to this image to get a basic understanding of the idea:
My algorithm assumes the clockwise is the positive direction. Here is a potential input:
[[-122.402015, 48.225216], [-117.032049, 48.999931], [-116.919132, 45.995175], [-124.079107, 46.267259], [-124.717175, 48.377557], [-122.92315, 47.047963], [-122.402015, 48.225216]]
The following is the python code that implements the idea:
def isInside(self, border, target):
degree = 0
for i in range(len(border) - 1):
a = border[i]
b = border[i + 1]
# calculate distance of vector
A = getDistance(a[0], a[1], b[0], b[1]);
B = getDistance(target[0], target[1], a[0], a[1])
C = getDistance(target[0], target[1], b[0], b[1])
# calculate direction of vector
ta_x = a[0] - target[0]
ta_y = a[1] - target[1]
tb_x = b[0] - target[0]
tb_y = b[1] - target[1]
cross = tb_y * ta_x - tb_x * ta_y
clockwise = cross < 0
# calculate sum of angles
if(clockwise):
degree = degree + math.degrees(math.acos((B * B + C * C - A * A) / (2.0 * B * C)))
else:
degree = degree - math.degrees(math.acos((B * B + C * C - A * A) / (2.0 * B * C)))
if(abs(round(degree) - 360) <= 3):
return True
return False
The Eric Haines article cited by bobobobo is really excellent. Particularly interesting are the tables comparing performance of the algorithms; the angle summation method is really bad compared to the others. Also interesting is that optimisations like using a lookup grid to further subdivide the polygon into "in" and "out" sectors can make the test incredibly fast even on polygons with > 1000 sides.
Anyway, it's early days but my vote goes to the "crossings" method, which is pretty much what Mecki describes I think. However I found it most succintly described and codified by David Bourke. I love that there is no real trigonometry required, and it works for convex and concave, and it performs reasonably well as the number of sides increases.
By the way, here's one of the performance tables from the Eric Haines' article for interest, testing on random polygons.
number of edges per polygon
3 4 10 100 1000
MacMartin 2.9 3.2 5.9 50.6 485
Crossings 3.1 3.4 6.8 60.0 624
Triangle Fan+edge sort 1.1 1.8 6.5 77.6 787
Triangle Fan 1.2 2.1 7.3 85.4 865
Barycentric 2.1 3.8 13.8 160.7 1665
Angle Summation 56.2 70.4 153.6 1403.8 14693
Grid (100x100) 1.5 1.5 1.6 2.1 9.8
Grid (20x20) 1.7 1.7 1.9 5.7 42.2
Bins (100) 1.8 1.9 2.7 15.1 117
Bins (20) 2.1 2.2 3.7 26.3 278
Really like the solution posted by Nirg and edited by bobobobo. I just made it javascript friendly and a little more legible for my use:
function insidePoly(poly, pointx, pointy) {
var i, j;
var inside = false;
for (i = 0, j = poly.length - 1; i < poly.length; j = i++) {
if(((poly[i].y > pointy) != (poly[j].y > pointy)) && (pointx < (poly[j].x-poly[i].x) * (pointy-poly[i].y) / (poly[j].y-poly[i].y) + poly[i].x) ) inside = !inside;
}
return inside;
}
Swift version of the answer by nirg:
extension CGPoint {
func isInsidePolygon(vertices: [CGPoint]) -> Bool {
guard !vertices.isEmpty else { return false }
var j = vertices.last!, c = false
for i in vertices {
let a = (i.y > y) != (j.y > y)
let b = (x < (j.x - i.x) * (y - i.y) / (j.y - i.y) + i.x)
if a && b { c = !c }
j = i
}
return c
}
}
Most of the answers in this question are not handling all corner cases well. Some subtle corner cases like below:
This is a javascript version with all corner cases well handled.
/** Get relationship between a point and a polygon using ray-casting algorithm
* #param {{x:number, y:number}} P: point to check
* #param {{x:number, y:number}[]} polygon: the polygon
* #returns -1: outside, 0: on edge, 1: inside
*/
function relationPP(P, polygon) {
const between = (p, a, b) => p >= a && p <= b || p <= a && p >= b
let inside = false
for (let i = polygon.length-1, j = 0; j < polygon.length; i = j, j++) {
const A = polygon[i]
const B = polygon[j]
// corner cases
if (P.x == A.x && P.y == A.y || P.x == B.x && P.y == B.y) return 0
if (A.y == B.y && P.y == A.y && between(P.x, A.x, B.x)) return 0
if (between(P.y, A.y, B.y)) { // if P inside the vertical range
// filter out "ray pass vertex" problem by treating the line a little lower
if (P.y == A.y && B.y >= A.y || P.y == B.y && A.y >= B.y) continue
// calc cross product `PA X PB`, P lays on left side of AB if c > 0
const c = (A.x - P.x) * (B.y - P.y) - (B.x - P.x) * (A.y - P.y)
if (c == 0) return 0
if ((A.y < B.y) == (c > 0)) inside = !inside
}
}
return inside? 1 : -1
}
I did some work on this back when I was a researcher under Michael Stonebraker - you know, the professor who came up with Ingres, PostgreSQL, etc.
We realized that the fastest way was to first do a bounding box because it's SUPER fast. If it's outside the bounding box, it's outside. Otherwise, you do the harder work...
If you want a great algorithm, look to the open source project PostgreSQL source code for the geo work...
I want to point out, we never got any insight into right vs left handedness (also expressible as an "inside" vs "outside" problem...
UPDATE
BKB's link provided a good number of reasonable algorithms. I was working on Earth Science problems and therefore needed a solution that works in latitude/longitude, and it has the peculiar problem of handedness - is the area inside the smaller area or the bigger area? The answer is that the "direction" of the verticies matters - it's either left-handed or right handed and in this way you can indicate either area as "inside" any given polygon. As such, my work used solution three enumerated on that page.
In addition, my work used separate functions for "on the line" tests.
...Since someone asked: we figured out that bounding box tests were best when the number of verticies went beyond some number - do a very quick test before doing the longer test if necessary... A bounding box is created by simply taking the largest x, smallest x, largest y and smallest y and putting them together to make four points of a box...
Another tip for those that follow: we did all our more sophisticated and "light-dimming" computing in a grid space all in positive points on a plane and then re-projected back into "real" longitude/latitude, thus avoiding possible errors of wrapping around when one crossed line 180 of longitude and when handling polar regions. Worked great!
The trivial solution would be to divide the polygon to triangles and hit test the triangles as explained here
If your polygon is CONVEX there might be a better approach though. Look at the polygon as a collection of infinite lines. Each line dividing space into two. for every point it's easy to say if its on the one side or the other side of the line. If a point is on the same side of all lines then it is inside the polygon.
David Segond's answer is pretty much the standard general answer, and Richard T's is the most common optimization, though therre are some others. Other strong optimizations are based on less general solutions. For example if you are going to check the same polygon with lots of points, triangulating the polygon can speed things up hugely as there are a number of very fast TIN searching algorithms. Another is if the polygon and points are on a limited plane at low resolution, say a screen display, you can paint the polygon onto a memory mapped display buffer in a given colour, and check the color of a given pixel to see if it lies in the polygons.
Like many optimizations, these are based on specific rather than general cases, and yield beneifits based on amortized time rather than single usage.
Working in this field, i found Joeseph O'Rourkes 'Computation Geometry in C' ISBN 0-521-44034-3 to be a great help.
Java Version:
public class Geocode {
private float latitude;
private float longitude;
public Geocode() {
}
public Geocode(float latitude, float longitude) {
this.latitude = latitude;
this.longitude = longitude;
}
public float getLatitude() {
return latitude;
}
public void setLatitude(float latitude) {
this.latitude = latitude;
}
public float getLongitude() {
return longitude;
}
public void setLongitude(float longitude) {
this.longitude = longitude;
}
}
public class GeoPolygon {
private ArrayList<Geocode> points;
public GeoPolygon() {
this.points = new ArrayList<Geocode>();
}
public GeoPolygon(ArrayList<Geocode> points) {
this.points = points;
}
public GeoPolygon add(Geocode geo) {
points.add(geo);
return this;
}
public boolean inside(Geocode geo) {
int i, j;
boolean c = false;
for (i = 0, j = points.size() - 1; i < points.size(); j = i++) {
if (((points.get(i).getLongitude() > geo.getLongitude()) != (points.get(j).getLongitude() > geo.getLongitude())) &&
(geo.getLatitude() < (points.get(j).getLatitude() - points.get(i).getLatitude()) * (geo.getLongitude() - points.get(i).getLongitude()) / (points.get(j).getLongitude() - points.get(i).getLongitude()) + points.get(i).getLatitude()))
c = !c;
}
return c;
}
}
I realize this is old, but here is a ray casting algorithm implemented in Cocoa, in case anyone is interested. Not sure it is the most efficient way to do things, but it may help someone out.
- (BOOL)shape:(NSBezierPath *)path containsPoint:(NSPoint)point
{
NSBezierPath *currentPath = [path bezierPathByFlatteningPath];
BOOL result;
float aggregateX = 0; //I use these to calculate the centroid of the shape
float aggregateY = 0;
NSPoint firstPoint[1];
[currentPath elementAtIndex:0 associatedPoints:firstPoint];
float olderX = firstPoint[0].x;
float olderY = firstPoint[0].y;
NSPoint interPoint;
int noOfIntersections = 0;
for (int n = 0; n < [currentPath elementCount]; n++) {
NSPoint points[1];
[currentPath elementAtIndex:n associatedPoints:points];
aggregateX += points[0].x;
aggregateY += points[0].y;
}
for (int n = 0; n < [currentPath elementCount]; n++) {
NSPoint points[1];
[currentPath elementAtIndex:n associatedPoints:points];
//line equations in Ax + By = C form
float _A_FOO = (aggregateY/[currentPath elementCount]) - point.y;
float _B_FOO = point.x - (aggregateX/[currentPath elementCount]);
float _C_FOO = (_A_FOO * point.x) + (_B_FOO * point.y);
float _A_BAR = olderY - points[0].y;
float _B_BAR = points[0].x - olderX;
float _C_BAR = (_A_BAR * olderX) + (_B_BAR * olderY);
float det = (_A_FOO * _B_BAR) - (_A_BAR * _B_FOO);
if (det != 0) {
//intersection points with the edges
float xIntersectionPoint = ((_B_BAR * _C_FOO) - (_B_FOO * _C_BAR)) / det;
float yIntersectionPoint = ((_A_FOO * _C_BAR) - (_A_BAR * _C_FOO)) / det;
interPoint = NSMakePoint(xIntersectionPoint, yIntersectionPoint);
if (olderX <= points[0].x) {
//doesn't matter in which direction the ray goes, so I send it right-ward.
if ((interPoint.x >= olderX && interPoint.x <= points[0].x) && (interPoint.x > point.x)) {
noOfIntersections++;
}
} else {
if ((interPoint.x >= points[0].x && interPoint.x <= olderX) && (interPoint.x > point.x)) {
noOfIntersections++;
}
}
}
olderX = points[0].x;
olderY = points[0].y;
}
if (noOfIntersections % 2 == 0) {
result = FALSE;
} else {
result = TRUE;
}
return result;
}
Obj-C version of nirg's answer with sample method for testing points. Nirg's answer worked well for me.
- (BOOL)isPointInPolygon:(NSArray *)vertices point:(CGPoint)test {
NSUInteger nvert = [vertices count];
NSInteger i, j, c = 0;
CGPoint verti, vertj;
for (i = 0, j = nvert-1; i < nvert; j = i++) {
verti = [(NSValue *)[vertices objectAtIndex:i] CGPointValue];
vertj = [(NSValue *)[vertices objectAtIndex:j] CGPointValue];
if (( (verti.y > test.y) != (vertj.y > test.y) ) &&
( test.x < ( vertj.x - verti.x ) * ( test.y - verti.y ) / ( vertj.y - verti.y ) + verti.x) )
c = !c;
}
return (c ? YES : NO);
}
- (void)testPoint {
NSArray *polygonVertices = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:
[NSValue valueWithCGPoint:CGPointMake(13.5, 41.5)],
[NSValue valueWithCGPoint:CGPointMake(42.5, 56.5)],
[NSValue valueWithCGPoint:CGPointMake(39.5, 69.5)],
[NSValue valueWithCGPoint:CGPointMake(42.5, 84.5)],
[NSValue valueWithCGPoint:CGPointMake(13.5, 100.0)],
[NSValue valueWithCGPoint:CGPointMake(6.0, 70.5)],
nil
];
CGPoint tappedPoint = CGPointMake(23.0, 70.0);
if ([self isPointInPolygon:polygonVertices point:tappedPoint]) {
NSLog(#"YES");
} else {
NSLog(#"NO");
}
}
There is nothing more beutiful than an inductive definition of a problem. For the sake of completeness here you have a version in prolog which might also clarify the thoughs behind ray casting:
Based on the simulation of simplicity algorithm in http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/Homepages/wrf/Research/Short_Notes/pnpoly.html
Some helper predicates:
exor(A,B):- \+A,B;A,\+B.
in_range(Coordinate,CA,CB) :- exor((CA>Coordinate),(CB>Coordinate)).
inside(false).
inside(_,[_|[]]).
inside(X:Y, [X1:Y1,X2:Y2|R]) :- in_range(Y,Y1,Y2), X > ( ((X2-X1)*(Y-Y1))/(Y2-Y1) + X1),toggle_ray, inside(X:Y, [X2:Y2|R]); inside(X:Y, [X2:Y2|R]).
get_line(_,_,[]).
get_line([XA:YA,XB:YB],[X1:Y1,X2:Y2|R]):- [XA:YA,XB:YB]=[X1:Y1,X2:Y2]; get_line([XA:YA,XB:YB],[X2:Y2|R]).
The equation of a line given 2 points A and B (Line(A,B)) is:
(YB-YA)
Y - YA = ------- * (X - XA)
(XB-YB)
It is important that the direction of rotation for the line is
setted to clock-wise for boundaries and anti-clock-wise for holes.
We are going to check whether the point (X,Y), i.e the tested point is at the left
half-plane of our line (it is a matter of taste, it could also be
the right side, but also the direction of boundaries lines has to be changed in
that case), this is to project the ray from the point to the right (or left)
and acknowledge the intersection with the line. We have chosen to project
the ray in the horizontal direction (again it is a matter of taste,
it could also be done in vertical with similar restrictions), so we have:
(XB-XA)
X < ------- * (Y - YA) + XA
(YB-YA)
Now we need to know if the point is at the left (or right) side of
the line segment only, not the entire plane, so we need to
restrict the search only to this segment, but this is easy since
to be inside the segment only one point in the line can be higher
than Y in the vertical axis. As this is a stronger restriction it
needs to be the first to check, so we take first only those lines
meeting this requirement and then check its possition. By the Jordan
Curve theorem any ray projected to a polygon must intersect at an
even number of lines. So we are done, we will throw the ray to the
right and then everytime it intersects a line, toggle its state.
However in our implementation we are goint to check the lenght of
the bag of solutions meeting the given restrictions and decide the
innership upon it. for each line in the polygon this have to be done.
is_left_half_plane(_,[],[],_).
is_left_half_plane(X:Y,[XA:YA,XB:YB], [[X1:Y1,X2:Y2]|R], Test) :- [XA:YA, XB:YB] = [X1:Y1, X2:Y2], call(Test, X , (((XB - XA) * (Y - YA)) / (YB - YA) + XA));
is_left_half_plane(X:Y, [XA:YA, XB:YB], R, Test).
in_y_range_at_poly(Y,[XA:YA,XB:YB],Polygon) :- get_line([XA:YA,XB:YB],Polygon), in_range(Y,YA,YB).
all_in_range(Coordinate,Polygon,Lines) :- aggregate(bag(Line), in_y_range_at_poly(Coordinate,Line,Polygon), Lines).
traverses_ray(X:Y, Lines, Count) :- aggregate(bag(Line), is_left_half_plane(X:Y, Line, Lines, <), IntersectingLines), length(IntersectingLines, Count).
% This is the entry point predicate
inside_poly(X:Y,Polygon,Answer) :- all_in_range(Y,Polygon,Lines), traverses_ray(X:Y, Lines, Count), (1 is mod(Count,2)->Answer=inside;Answer=outside).
I've made a Python implementation of nirg's c++ code:
Inputs
bounding_points: nodes that make up the polygon.
bounding_box_positions: candidate points to filter. (In my implementation created from the bounding box.
(The inputs are lists of tuples in the format: [(xcord, ycord), ...])
Returns
All the points that are inside the polygon.
def polygon_ray_casting(self, bounding_points, bounding_box_positions):
# Arrays containing the x- and y-coordinates of the polygon's vertices.
vertx = [point[0] for point in bounding_points]
verty = [point[1] for point in bounding_points]
# Number of vertices in the polygon
nvert = len(bounding_points)
# Points that are inside
points_inside = []
# For every candidate position within the bounding box
for idx, pos in enumerate(bounding_box_positions):
testx, testy = (pos[0], pos[1])
c = 0
for i in range(0, nvert):
j = i - 1 if i != 0 else nvert - 1
if( ((verty[i] > testy ) != (verty[j] > testy)) and
(testx < (vertx[j] - vertx[i]) * (testy - verty[i]) / (verty[j] - verty[i]) + vertx[i]) ):
c += 1
# If odd, that means that we are inside the polygon
if c % 2 == 1:
points_inside.append(pos)
return points_inside
Again, the idea is taken from here
C# version of nirg's answer is here: I'll just share the code. It may save someone some time.
public static bool IsPointInPolygon(IList<Point> polygon, Point testPoint) {
bool result = false;
int j = polygon.Count() - 1;
for (int i = 0; i < polygon.Count(); i++) {
if (polygon[i].Y < testPoint.Y && polygon[j].Y >= testPoint.Y || polygon[j].Y < testPoint.Y && polygon[i].Y >= testPoint.Y) {
if (polygon[i].X + (testPoint.Y - polygon[i].Y) / (polygon[j].Y - polygon[i].Y) * (polygon[j].X - polygon[i].X) < testPoint.X) {
result = !result;
}
}
j = i;
}
return result;
}
VBA VERSION:
Note: Remember that if your polygon is an area within a map that Latitude/Longitude are Y/X values as opposed to X/Y (Latitude = Y, Longitude = X) due to from what I understand are historical implications from way back when Longitude was not a measurement.
CLASS MODULE: CPoint
Private pXValue As Double
Private pYValue As Double
'''''X Value Property'''''
Public Property Get X() As Double
X = pXValue
End Property
Public Property Let X(Value As Double)
pXValue = Value
End Property
'''''Y Value Property'''''
Public Property Get Y() As Double
Y = pYValue
End Property
Public Property Let Y(Value As Double)
pYValue = Value
End Property
MODULE:
Public Function isPointInPolygon(p As CPoint, polygon() As CPoint) As Boolean
Dim i As Integer
Dim j As Integer
Dim q As Object
Dim minX As Double
Dim maxX As Double
Dim minY As Double
Dim maxY As Double
minX = polygon(0).X
maxX = polygon(0).X
minY = polygon(0).Y
maxY = polygon(0).Y
For i = 1 To UBound(polygon)
Set q = polygon(i)
minX = vbMin(q.X, minX)
maxX = vbMax(q.X, maxX)
minY = vbMin(q.Y, minY)
maxY = vbMax(q.Y, maxY)
Next i
If p.X < minX Or p.X > maxX Or p.Y < minY Or p.Y > maxY Then
isPointInPolygon = False
Exit Function
End If
' SOURCE: http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/Homepages/wrf/Research/Short_Notes/pnpoly.html
isPointInPolygon = False
i = 0
j = UBound(polygon)
Do While i < UBound(polygon) + 1
If (polygon(i).Y > p.Y) Then
If (polygon(j).Y < p.Y) Then
If p.X < (polygon(j).X - polygon(i).X) * (p.Y - polygon(i).Y) / (polygon(j).Y - polygon(i).Y) + polygon(i).X Then
isPointInPolygon = True
Exit Function
End If
End If
ElseIf (polygon(i).Y < p.Y) Then
If (polygon(j).Y > p.Y) Then
If p.X < (polygon(j).X - polygon(i).X) * (p.Y - polygon(i).Y) / (polygon(j).Y - polygon(i).Y) + polygon(i).X Then
isPointInPolygon = True
Exit Function
End If
End If
End If
j = i
i = i + 1
Loop
End Function
Function vbMax(n1, n2) As Double
vbMax = IIf(n1 > n2, n1, n2)
End Function
Function vbMin(n1, n2) As Double
vbMin = IIf(n1 > n2, n2, n1)
End Function
Sub TestPointInPolygon()
Dim i As Integer
Dim InPolygon As Boolean
' MARKER Object
Dim p As CPoint
Set p = New CPoint
p.X = <ENTER X VALUE HERE>
p.Y = <ENTER Y VALUE HERE>
' POLYGON OBJECT
Dim polygon() As CPoint
ReDim polygon(<ENTER VALUE HERE>) 'Amount of vertices in polygon - 1
For i = 0 To <ENTER VALUE HERE> 'Same value as above
Set polygon(i) = New CPoint
polygon(i).X = <ASSIGN X VALUE HERE> 'Source a list of values that can be looped through
polgyon(i).Y = <ASSIGN Y VALUE HERE> 'Source a list of values that can be looped through
Next i
InPolygon = isPointInPolygon(p, polygon)
MsgBox InPolygon
End Sub
.Net port:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.Write("Hola");
List<double> vertx = new List<double>();
List<double> verty = new List<double>();
int i, j, c = 0;
vertx.Add(1);
vertx.Add(2);
vertx.Add(1);
vertx.Add(4);
vertx.Add(4);
vertx.Add(1);
verty.Add(1);
verty.Add(2);
verty.Add(4);
verty.Add(4);
verty.Add(1);
verty.Add(1);
int nvert = 6; //Vértices del poligono
double testx = 2;
double testy = 5;
for (i = 0, j = nvert - 1; i < nvert; j = i++)
{
if (((verty[i] > testy) != (verty[j] > testy)) &&
(testx < (vertx[j] - vertx[i]) * (testy - verty[i]) / (verty[j] - verty[i]) + vertx[i]))
c = 1;
}
}
Surprised nobody brought this up earlier, but for the pragmatists requiring a database: MongoDB has excellent support for Geo queries including this one.
What you are looking for is:
db.neighborhoods.findOne({ geometry: { $geoIntersects: { $geometry: {
type: "Point", coordinates: [ "longitude", "latitude" ] } } }
})
Neighborhoods is the collection that stores one or more polygons in standard GeoJson format. If the query returns null it is not intersected otherwise it is.
Very well documented here:
https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/tutorial/geospatial-tutorial/
The performance for more than 6,000 points classified in a 330 irregular polygon grid was less than one minute with no optimization at all and including the time to update documents with their respective polygon.
Heres a point in polygon test in C that isn't using ray-casting. And it can work for overlapping areas (self intersections), see the use_holes argument.
/* math lib (defined below) */
static float dot_v2v2(const float a[2], const float b[2]);
static float angle_signed_v2v2(const float v1[2], const float v2[2]);
static void copy_v2_v2(float r[2], const float a[2]);
/* intersection function */
bool isect_point_poly_v2(const float pt[2], const float verts[][2], const unsigned int nr,
const bool use_holes)
{
/* we do the angle rule, define that all added angles should be about zero or (2 * PI) */
float angletot = 0.0;
float fp1[2], fp2[2];
unsigned int i;
const float *p1, *p2;
p1 = verts[nr - 1];
/* first vector */
fp1[0] = p1[0] - pt[0];
fp1[1] = p1[1] - pt[1];
for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
p2 = verts[i];
/* second vector */
fp2[0] = p2[0] - pt[0];
fp2[1] = p2[1] - pt[1];
/* dot and angle and cross */
angletot += angle_signed_v2v2(fp1, fp2);
/* circulate */
copy_v2_v2(fp1, fp2);
p1 = p2;
}
angletot = fabsf(angletot);
if (use_holes) {
const float nested = floorf((angletot / (float)(M_PI * 2.0)) + 0.00001f);
angletot -= nested * (float)(M_PI * 2.0);
return (angletot > 4.0f) != ((int)nested % 2);
}
else {
return (angletot > 4.0f);
}
}
/* math lib */
static float dot_v2v2(const float a[2], const float b[2])
{
return a[0] * b[0] + a[1] * b[1];
}
static float angle_signed_v2v2(const float v1[2], const float v2[2])
{
const float perp_dot = (v1[1] * v2[0]) - (v1[0] * v2[1]);
return atan2f(perp_dot, dot_v2v2(v1, v2));
}
static void copy_v2_v2(float r[2], const float a[2])
{
r[0] = a[0];
r[1] = a[1];
}
Note: this is one of the less optimal methods since it includes a lot of calls to atan2f, but it may be of interest to developers reading this thread (in my tests its ~23x slower then using the line intersection method).
If you're using Google Map SDK and want to check if a point is inside a polygon, you can try to use GMSGeometryContainsLocation. It works great!! Here is how that works,
if GMSGeometryContainsLocation(point, polygon, true) {
print("Inside this polygon.")
} else {
print("outside this polygon")
}
Here is the reference: https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/ios-sdk/reference/group___geometry_utils#gaba958d3776d49213404af249419d0ffd
This is a presumably slightly less optimized version of the C code from here which was sourced from this page.
My C++ version uses a std::vector<std::pair<double, double>> and two doubles as an x and y. The logic should be exactly the same as the original C code, but I find mine easier to read. I can't speak for the performance.
bool point_in_poly(std::vector<std::pair<double, double>>& verts, double point_x, double point_y)
{
bool in_poly = false;
auto num_verts = verts.size();
for (int i = 0, j = num_verts - 1; i < num_verts; j = i++) {
double x1 = verts[i].first;
double y1 = verts[i].second;
double x2 = verts[j].first;
double y2 = verts[j].second;
if (((y1 > point_y) != (y2 > point_y)) &&
(point_x < (x2 - x1) * (point_y - y1) / (y2 - y1) + x1))
in_poly = !in_poly;
}
return in_poly;
}
The original C code is
int pnpoly(int nvert, float *vertx, float *verty, float testx, float testy)
{
int i, j, c = 0;
for (i = 0, j = nvert-1; i < nvert; j = i++) {
if ( ((verty[i]>testy) != (verty[j]>testy)) &&
(testx < (vertx[j]-vertx[i]) * (testy-verty[i]) / (verty[j]-verty[i]) + vertx[i]) )
c = !c;
}
return c;
}
Yet another numpyic implementation which I believe is the most concise one out of all the answers so far.
For example, let's say we have a polygon with polygon hollows that looks like this:
The 2D coordinates for the vertices of the large polygon are
[[139, 483], [227, 792], [482, 849], [523, 670], [352, 330]]
The coordinates for the vertices of the square hollow are
[[248, 518], [336, 510], [341, 614], [250, 620]]
The coordinates for the vertices of the triangle hollow are
[[416, 531], [505, 517], [495, 616]]
Say we want to test two points [296, 557] and [422, 730] if they are within the red area (excluding the edges). If we locate the two points, it will look like this:
Obviously, [296, 557] is not inside the read area, whereas [422, 730] is.
My solution is based on the winding number algorithm. Below is my 4-line python code using only numpy:
def detect(points, *polygons):
import numpy as np
endpoint1 = np.r_[tuple(np.roll(p, 1, 0) for p in polygons)][:, None] - points
endpoint2 = np.r_[polygons][:, None] - points
p1, p2 = np.cross(endpoint1, endpoint2), np.einsum('...i,...i', endpoint1, endpoint2)
return ~((p1.sum(0) < 0) ^ (abs(np.arctan2(p1, p2).sum(0)) > np.pi) | ((p1 == 0) & (p2 <= 0)).any(0))
To test the implementation:
points = [[296, 557], [422, 730]]
polygon1 = [[139, 483], [227, 792], [482, 849], [523, 670], [352, 330]]
polygon2 = [[248, 518], [336, 510], [341, 614], [250, 620]]
polygon3 = [[416, 531], [505, 517], [495, 616]]
print(detect(points, polygon1, polygon2, polygon3))
Output:
[False True]
For Detecting hit on Polygon we need to test two things:
If Point is inside polygon area. (can be accomplished by Ray-Casting Algorithm)
If Point is on the polygon border(can be accomplished by same algorithm which is used for point detection on polyline(line)).
To deal with the following special cases in Ray casting algorithm:
The ray overlaps one of the polygon's side.
The point is inside of the polygon and the ray passes through a vertex of the polygon.
The point is outside of the polygon and the ray just touches one of the polygon's angle.
Check Determining Whether A Point Is Inside A Complex Polygon. The article provides an easy way to resolve them so there will be no special treatment required for the above cases.
You can do this by checking if the area formed by connecting the desired point to the vertices of your polygon matches the area of the polygon itself.
Or you could check if the sum of the inner angles from your point to each pair of two consecutive polygon vertices to your check point sums to 360, but I have the feeling that the first option is quicker because it doesn't involve divisions nor calculations of inverse of trigonometric functions.
I don't know what happens if your polygon has a hole inside it but it seems to me that the main idea can be adapted to this situation
You can as well post the question in a math community. I bet they have one million ways of doing that
If you are looking for a java-script library there's a javascript google maps v3 extension for the Polygon class to detect whether or not a point resides within it.
var polygon = new google.maps.Polygon([], "#000000", 1, 1, "#336699", 0.3);
var isWithinPolygon = polygon.containsLatLng(40, -90);
Google Extention Github

Resources