Having a set of (2D) points from a GIS file (a city map), I need to generate the polygon that defines the 'contour' for that map (its boundary). Its input parameters would be the points set and a 'maximum edge length'. It would then output the corresponding (probably non-convex) polygon.
The best solution I found so far was to generate the Delaunay triangles and then remove the external edges that are longer than the maximum edge length. After all the external edges are shorter than that, I simply remove the internal edges and get the polygon I want. The problem is, this is very time-consuming and I'm wondering if there's a better way.
One of the former students in our lab used some applicable techniques for his PhD thesis. I believe one of them is called "alpha shapes" and is referenced in the following paper:
http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/kerekes/pdfs/AIPR_2007_Gurram.pdf
That paper gives some further references you can follow.
This paper discusses the Efficient generation of simple polygons for characterizing the shape of a set of points in the plane and provides the algorithm. There's also a Java applet utilizing the same algorithm here.
The guys here claim to have developed a k nearest neighbors approach to determining the concave hull of a set of points which behaves "almost linearly on the number of points". Sadly their paper seems to be very well guarded and you'll have to ask them for it.
Here's a good set of references that includes the above and might lead you to find a better approach.
The answer may still be interesting for somebody else: One may apply a variation of the marching square algorithm, applied (1) within the concave hull, and (2) then on (e.g. 3) different scales that my depend on the average density of points. The scales need to be int multiples of each other, such you build a grid you can use for efficient sampling. This allows to quickly find empty samples=squares, samples that are completely within a "cluster/cloud" of points, and those, which are in between. The latter category then can be used to determine easily the poly-line that represents a part of the concave hull.
Everything is linear in this approach, no triangulation is needed, it does not use alpha shapes and it is different from the commercial/patented offering as described here ( http://www.concavehull.com/ )
A quick approximate solution (also useful for convex hulls) is to find the north and south bounds for each small element east-west.
Based on how much detail you want, create a fixed sized array of upper/lower bounds.
For each point calculate which E-W column it is in and then update the upper/lower bounds for that column. After you processed all the points you can interpolate the upper/lower points for those columns that missed.
It's also worth doing a quick check beforehand for very long thin shapes and deciding wether to bin NS or Ew.
A simple solution is to walk around the edge of the polygon. Given a current edge om the boundary connecting points P0 and P1, the next point on the boundary P2 will be the point with the smallest possible A, where
H01 = bearing from P0 to P1
H12 = bearing from P1 to P2
A = fmod( H12-H01+360, 360 )
|P2-P1| <= MaxEdgeLength
Then you set
P0 <- P1
P1 <- P2
and repeat until you get back where you started.
This is still O(N^2) so you'll want to sort your pointlist a little. You can limit the set of points you need to consider at each iteration if you sort points on, say, their bearing from the city's centroid.
Good question! I haven't tried this out at all, but my first shot would be this iterative method:
Create a set N ("not contained"), and add all points in your set to N.
Pick 3 points from N at random to form an initial polygon P. Remove them from N.
Use some point-in-polygon algorithm and look at points in N. For each point in N, if it is now contained by P, remove it from N. As soon as you find a point in N that is still not contained in P, continue to step 4. If N becomes empty, you're done.
Call the point you found A. Find the line in P closest to A, and add A in the middle of it.
Go back to step 3
I think it would work as long as it performs well enough — a good heuristic for your initial 3 points might help.
Good luck!
You can do it in QGIS with this plug in;
https://github.com/detlevn/QGIS-ConcaveHull-Plugin
Depending on how you need it to interact with your data, probably worth checking out how it was done here.
As a wildly adopted reference, PostGIS starts with a convexhull and then caves it in, you can see it here.
https://github.com/postgis/postgis/blob/380583da73227ca1a52da0e0b3413b92ae69af9d/postgis/postgis.sql.in#L5819
The Bing Maps V8 interactive SDK has a concave hull option within the advanced shape operations.
https://www.bing.com/mapspreview/sdkrelease/mapcontrol/isdk/advancedshapeoperations?toWww=1&redig=D53FACBB1A00423195C53D841EA0D14E#JS
Within ArcGIS 10.5.1, the 3D Analyst extension has a Minimum Bounding Volume tool with the geometry types of concave hull, sphere, envelope, or convex hull. It can be used at any license level.
There is a concave hull algorithm here: https://github.com/mapbox/concaveman
Related
I am certain there is already some algorithm that does what I need, but I am not sure what phrase to Google, or what is the algorithm category.
Here is my problem: I have a polyhedron made up by several contacting blocks (hyperslabs), i. e. the edges are axis aligned and the angles between edges are 90°. There may be holes inside the polyhedron.
I want to break up this concave polyhedron in as little convex rectangular axis-aligned whole blocks are possible (if the original polyhedron is convex and has no holes, then it is already such a block, and therefore, the solution). To illustrate, some 2-D images I made (but I need the solution for 3-D, and preferably, N-D):
I have this geometry:
One possible breakup into blocks is this:
But the one I want is this (with as few blocks as possible):
I have the impression that an exact algorithm may be too expensive (is this problem NP-hard?), so an approximate algorithm is suitable.
One detail that maybe make the problem easier, so that there could be a more appropriated/specialized algorithm for it is that all edges have sizes multiple of some fixed value (you may think all edges sizes are integer numbers, or that the geometry is made up by uniform tiny squares, or voxels).
Background: this is the structured grid discretization of a PDE domain.
What algorithm can solve this problem? What class of algorithms should I
search for?
Update: Before you upvote that answer, I want to point out that my answer is slightly off-topic. The original poster have a question about the decomposition of a polyhedron with faces that are axis-aligned. Given such kind of polyhedron, the question is to decompose it into convex parts. And the question is in 3D, possibly nD. My answer is about the decomposition of a general polyhedron. So when I give an answer with a given implementation, that answer applies to the special case of polyhedron axis-aligned, but it might be that there exists a better implementation for axis-aligned polyhedron. And when my answer says that a problem for generic polyhedron is NP-complete, it might be that there exists a polynomial solution for the special case of axis-aligned polyhedron. I do not know.
Now here is my (slightly off-topic) answer, below the horizontal rule...
The CGAL C++ library has an algorithm that, given a 2D polygon, can compute the optimal convex decomposition of that polygon. The method is mentioned in the part 2D Polygon Partitioning of the manual. The method is named CGAL::optimal_convex_partition_2. I quote the manual:
This function provides an implementation of Greene's dynamic programming algorithm for optimal partitioning [2]. This algorithm requires O(n4) time and O(n3) space in the worst case.
In the bibliography of that CGAL chapter, the article [2] is:
[2] Daniel H. Greene. The decomposition of polygons into convex parts. In Franco P. Preparata, editor, Computational Geometry, volume 1 of Adv. Comput. Res., pages 235–259. JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn., 1983.
It seems to be exactly what you are looking for.
Note that the same chapter of the CGAL manual also mention an approximation, hence not optimal, that run in O(n): CGAL::approx_convex_partition_2.
Edit, about the 3D case:
In 3D, CGAL has another chapter about Convex Decomposition of Polyhedra. The second paragraph of the chapter says "this problem is known to be NP-hard [1]". The reference [1] is:
[1] Bernard Chazelle. Convex partitions of polyhedra: a lower bound and worst-case optimal algorithm. SIAM J. Comput., 13:488–507, 1984.
CGAL has a method CGAL::convex_decomposition_3 that computes a non-optimal decomposition.
I have the feeling your problem is NP-hard. I suggest a first step might be to break the figure into sub-rectangles along all hyperplanes. So in your example there would be three hyperplanes (lines) and four resulting rectangles. Then the problem becomes one of recombining rectangles into larger rectangles to minimize the final number of rectangles. Maybe 0-1 integer programming?
I think dynamic programming might be your friend.
The first step I see is to divide the polyhedron into a trivial collection of blocks such that every possible face is available (i.e. slice and dice it into the smallest pieces possible). This should be trivial because everything is an axis aligned box, so k-tree like solutions should be sufficient.
This seems reasonable because I can look at its cost. The cost of doing this is that I "forget" the original configuration of hyperslabs, choosing to replace it with a new set of hyperslabs. The only way this could lead me astray is if the original configuration had something to offer for the solution. Given that you want an "optimal" solution for all configurations, we have to assume that the original structure isn't very helpful. I don't know if it can be proven that this original information is useless, but I'm going to make that assumption in this answer.
The problem has now been reduced to a graph problem similar to a constrained spanning forest problem. I think the most natural way to view the problem is to think of it as a graph coloring problem (as long as you can avoid confusing it with the more famous graph coloring problem of trying to color a map without two states of the same color sharing a border). I have a graph of nodes (small blocks), each of which I wish to assign a color (which will eventually be the "hyperslab" which covers that block). I have the constraint that I must assign colors in hyperslab shapes.
Now a key observation is that not all possibilities must be considered. Take the final colored graph we want to see. We can partition this graph in any way we please by breaking any hyperslab which crosses the partition into two pieces. However, not every partition is meaningful. The only partitions that make sense are axis aligned cuts, which always break a hyperslab into two hyperslabs (as opposed to any more complicated shape which could occur if the cut was not axis aligned).
Now this cut is the reverse of the problem we're really trying to solve. That cutting is actually the thing we did in the first step. While we want to find the optimal merging algorithm, undoing those cuts. However, this shows a key feature we will use in dynamic programming: the only features that matter for merging are on the exposed surface of a cut. Once we find the optimal way of forming the central region, it generally doesn't play a part in the algorithm.
So let's start by building a collection of hyperslab-spaces, which can define not just a plain hyperslab, but any configuration of hyperslabs such as those with holes. Each hyperslab-space records:
The number of leaf hyperslabs contained within it (this is the number we are eventually going to try to minimize)
The internal configuration of hyperslabs.
A map of the surface of the hyperslab-space, which can be used for merging.
We then define a "merge" rule to turn two or more adjacent hyperslab-spaces into one:
Hyperslab-spaces may only be combined into new hyperslab-spaces (so you need to combine enough pieces to create a new hyperslab, not some more exotic shape)
Merges are done simply by comparing the surfaces. If there are features with matching dimensionalities, they are merged (because it is trivial to show that, if the features match, it is always better to merge hyperslabs than not to)
Now this is enough to solve the problem with brute force. The solution will be NP-complete for certain. However, we can add an additional rule which will drop this cost dramatically: "One hyperslab-space is deemed 'better' than another if they cover the same space, and have exactly the same features on their surface. In this case, the one with fewer hyperslabs inside it is the better choice."
Now the idea here is that, early on in the algorithm, you will have to keep track of all sorts of combinations, just in case they are the most useful. However, as the merging algorithm makes things bigger and bigger, it will become less likely that internal details will be exposed on the surface of the hyperslab-space. Consider
+===+===+===+---+---+---+---+
| : : A | X : : : :
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| : : B | Y : : : :
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| : : | : : : :
+===+===+===+ +---+---+---+
Take a look at the left side box, which I have taken the liberty of marking in stronger lines. When it comes to merging boxes with the rest of the world, the AB:XY surface is all that matters. As such, there are only a handful of merge patterns which can occur at this surface
No merges possible
A:X allows merging, but B:Y does not
B:Y allows merging, but A:X does not
Both A:X and B:Y allow merging (two independent merges)
We can merge a larger square, AB:XY
There are many ways to cover the 3x3 square (at least a few dozen). However, we only need to remember the best way to achieve each of those merge processes. Thus once we reach this point in the dynamic programming, we can forget about all of the other combinations that can occur, and only focus on the best way to achieve each set of surface features.
In fact, this sets up the problem for an easy greedy algorithm which explores whichever merges provide the best promise for decreasing the number of hyperslabs, always remembering the best way to achieve a given set of surface features. When the algorithm is done merging, whatever that final hyperslab-space contains is the optimal layout.
I don't know if it is provable, but my gut instinct thinks that this will be an O(n^d) algorithm where d is the number of dimensions. I think the worst case solution for this would be a collection of hyperslabs which, when put together, forms one big hyperslab. In this case, I believe the algorithm will eventually work its way into the reverse of a k-tree algorithm. Again, no proof is given... it's just my gut instinct.
You can try a constrained delaunay triangulation. It gives very few triangles.
Are you able to determine the equations for each line?
If so, maybe you can get the intersection (points) between those lines. Then if you take one axis, and start to look for a value which has more than two points (sharing this value) then you should "draw" a line. (At the beginning of the sweep there will be zero points, then two (your first pair) and when you find more than two points, you will be able to determine which points are of the first polygon and which are of the second one.
Eg, if you have those lines:
verticals (red):
x = 0, x = 2, x = 5
horizontals (yellow):
y = 0, y = 2, y = 3, y = 5
and you start to sweep through of X axis, you will get p1 and p2, (and we know to which line-equation they belong ) then you will get p3,p4,p5 and p6 !! So here you can check which of those points share the same line of p1 and p2. In this case p4 and p5. So your first new polygon is p1,p2,p4,p5.
Now we save the 'new' pair of points (p3, p6) and continue with the sweep until the next points. Here we have p7,p8,p9 and p10, looking for the points which share the line of the previous points (p3 and p6) and we get p7 and p10. Those are the points of your second polygon.
When we repeat the exercise for the Y axis, we will get two points (p3,p7) and then just three (p1,p2,p8) ! On this case we should use the farest point (p8) in the same line of the new discovered point.
As we are using lines equations and points 2 or more dimensions, the procedure should be very similar
ps, sorry for my english :S
I hope this helps :)
I have a convex shape defined by a set of vertices. I also have a large set of points and I would like to test which are contained in the convex shape. Currently I just use an open source linear programming solver for each point independently with a constant objective function. See chapter 11.4 of http://www.stanford.edu/~boyd/cvxbook/bv_cvxbook.pdf for more details.
However this is quite slow even in 100 dimensions. Is there a way to use the fact that all the query points are known in advance to speed the process up?
edit Fixed typo in question.
My suggestion would be to find the convex hull of the points inside the shape. I can't immediately think of a way to get this directly from an LP solver, but you can find the point nearest to a given hyperplane of the shape by adding a linear term for that hyperplane to the objective function. Repeat this for all edges of the shape, and for each edge repeat it several times, eliminating the most recent solution each time to pick up increasingly distant contained points. This should give you a number of points "close" to and inside the hyperplane.
Once you have the hull, you should then be able to classify all other points as being inside or outside it relatively quickly. I'm sure there are algorithms to do this fairly quickly, though I'm not aware of any. One potentially useful method that could get rid of a lot of internal points would be: if the space is n-dimensional, pick n+1 points on the hull and test every point to see whether it's a convex combination of these points (using linear algebra).
I have a detailed 2D polygon (representing a geographic area) that is defined by a very large set of vertices. I'm looking for an algorithm that will simplify and smooth the polygon, (reducing the number of vertices) with the constraint that the area of the resulting polygon must contain all the vertices of the detailed polygon.
For context, here's an example of the edge of one complex polygon:
My research:
I found the Ramer–Douglas–Peucker algorithm which will reduce the number of vertices - but the resulting polygon will not contain all of the original polygon's vertices. See this article Ramer-Douglas-Peucker on Wikipedia
I considered expanding the polygon (I believe this is also known as outward polygon offsetting). I found these questions: Expanding a polygon (convex only) and Inflating a polygon. But I don't think this will substantially reduce the detail of my polygon.
Thanks for any advice you can give me!
Edit
As of 2013, most links below are not functional anymore. However, I've found the cited paper, algorithm included, still available at this (very slow) server.
Here you can find a project dealing exactly with your issues. Although it works primarily with an area "filled" by points, you can set it to work with a "perimeter" type definition as yours.
It uses a k-nearest neighbors approach for calculating the region.
Samples:
Here you can request a copy of the paper.
Seemingly they planned to offer an online service for requesting calculations, but I didn't test it, and probably it isn't running.
HTH!
I think Visvalingam’s algorithm can be adapted for this purpose - by skipping removal of triangles that would reduce the area.
I had a very similar problem : I needed an inflating simplification of polygons.
I did a simple algorithm, by removing concav point (this will increase the polygon size) or removing convex edge (between 2 convex points) and prolongating adjacent edges. In any case, doing one of those 2 possibilities will remove one point on the polygon.
I choosed to removed the point or the edge that leads to smallest area variation. You can repeat this process, until the simplification is ok for you (for example no more than 200 points).
The 2 main difficulties were to obtain fast algorithm (by avoiding to compute vertex/edge removal variation twice and maintaining possibilities sorted) and to avoid inserting self-intersection in the process (not very easy to do and to explain but possible with limited computational complexity).
In fact, after looking more closely it is a similar idea than the one of Visvalingam with adaptation for edge removal.
That's an interesting problem! I never tried anything like this, but here's an idea off the top of my head... apologies if it makes no sense or wouldn't work :)
Calculate a convex hull, that might be way too big / imprecise
Divide the hull into N slices, for example joining each one of the hull's vertices to the center
Calculate the intersection of your object with each slice
Repeat recursively for each intersection (calculating the intersection's hull, etc)
Each level of recursion should give a better approximation.... when you reached a satisfying level, merge all the hulls from that level to get the final polygon.
Does that sound like it could do the job?
To some degree I'm not sure what you are trying to do but it seems you have two very good answers. One is Ramer–Douglas–Peucker (DP) and the other is computing the alpha shape (also called a Concave Hull, non-convex hull, etc.). I found a more recent paper describing alpha shapes and linked it below.
I personally think DP with polygon expansion is the way to go. I'm not sure why you think it won't substantially reduce the number of vertices. With DP you supply a factor and you can make it anything you want to the point where you end up with a triangle no matter what your input. Picking this factor can be hard but in your case I think it's the best method. You should be able to determine the factor based on the size of the largest bit of detail you want to go away. You can do this with direct testing or by calculating it from your source data.
http://www.it.uu.se/edu/course/homepage/projektTDB/ht13/project10/Project-10-report.pdf
I've written a simple modification of Douglas-Peucker that might be helpful to anyone having this problem in the future: https://github.com/prakol16/rdp-expansion-only
It's identical to DP except that it pushes a line segment outwards a bit if the points that it would remove are outside the polygon. This guarantees that the resulting simplified polygon contains all the original polygon, but it has almost the same number of line segments as the original DP algorithm and is usually reasonably good at approximating the original shape.
Suppose random points P1 to P20 scattered in a plane.
Then is there any way to sort those points in either clock-wise or anti-clock wise.
Here we can’t use degree because you can see from the image many points can have same degree.
E.g, here P4,P5 and P13 acquire the same degree.
If your picture has realistic distance between the points, you might get by with just choosing a point at random, say P1, and then always picking the nearest unvisited neighbour as your next point. Traveling Salesman, kind of.
Are you saying you want an ordered result P1, P2, ... P13?
If that's the case, you need to find the convex hull of the points. Walking around the circumference of the hull will then give you the order of the points that you need.
In a practical sense, have a look at OpenCV's documentation -- calling convexHull with clockwise=true gives you a vector of points in the order that you want. The link is for C++, but there are C and Python APIs there as well. Other packages like Matlab should have a similar function, as this is a common geometrical problem to solve.
EDIT
Once you get your convex hull, you could iteratively collapse it from the outside to get the remaining points. Your iterations would stop when there are no more pixels left inside the hull. You would have to set up your collapse function such that closer points are included first, i.e. such that you get:
and not:
In both diagrams, green is the original convex hull, the other colors are collapsed areas.
Find the right-most of those points (in O(n)) and sort by the angle relative to that point (O(nlog(n))).
It's the first step of graham's convex-hull algorithm, so it's a very common procedure.
Edit: Actually, it's just not possible, since the polygonal representation (i.e. the output-order) of your points is ambiguous. The algorithm above will only work for convex polygons, but it can be extended to work for star-shaped polygons too (you need to pick a different "reference-point").
You need to define the order you actually want more precisely.
Here is a problem I am trying to solve:
I have an irregular shape. How would I go about evenly distributing 5 points on this shape so that the distance between each point is equal to each other?
David says this is impossible, but in fact there is an answer out of left field: just put all your points on top of each other! They'll all have the same distance to all the other points: zero.
In fact, that's the only algorithm that has a solution (i.e. all pairwise distances are the same) regardless of the input shape.
I know the question asks to put the points "evenly", but since that's not formally defined, I expect that was just an attempt to explain "all pairwise distances are the same", in which case my answer is "even".
this is mathematically impossible. It will only work for a small subset of base shapes.
There are however some solutions you might try:
Analytic approach. Start with a point P0, create a sphere around P0 and intersect it with the base shape, giving you a set of curves C0. Then create another point P1 somewhere on C0. Again, create a sphere around P1 and intersect it with C0, giving you a set of points C1, your third point P2 will be one of the points in C1. And so on and so forth. This approach guarantees distance constraints, but it also heavily depends on initial conditions.
Iterative approach. Essentially form-finding. You create some points on the object and you also create springs between the ones that share a distance constraint. Then you solve the spring forces and move your points accordingly. This will most likely push them away from the base shape, so you need to pull them back onto the base shape. Repeat until your points are no longer moving or until the distance constraint has been satisfied within tolerance.
Sampling approach. Convert your base geometry into a voxel space, and start scooping out all the voxels that are too close to a newly inserted point. This makes sure you never get two points too close together, but it also suffers from tolerance (and probably performance) issues.
If you can supply more information regarding the nature of your geometry and your constraints, a more specific answer becomes possible.
For folks stumbling across here in the future, check out Lloyd's algorithm.
The only way to position 5 points equally distant from one another (other than the trivial solution of putting them through the origin) is in the 4+ dimensional space. It is mathematically impossible to have 5 equally distanced object in 3D.
Four is the most you can have in 3D and that shape is a tetrahedron.