-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 424
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Handle extended classifications. Issue #445 #514
Conversation
Hi, thanks for the PR! #336 seems to want to use the extended classification if the normal classification is 0. Do you know if one of these versions is correct or if it doesn't matter? |
I searched a bit to determine how exactly you determine whether to use https://github.com/LAStools/LAStools/blob/master/LASzip/example/laszipdllexample.cpp#L2328
The following example says for
I feel that ideally someone finds a link that documents or gives a code example of exactly how you determine which classification to use. I did see some places in the codebase that used check for
I am kind of thinking that both ways of doing it would work. I am just not sure of how Martin intended it to work. |
@rburgstaler As such a reader for LasPoint can safely read with get_extended_classification if Point type >= 6 is in use. If you try to read with get_classification then you will get zeroed out fields for classifications >= 32 I think extended_classification will be uninitialised if you get a LasPoint via the copy constructor from a point with extended_point_type unset. Everything else seems to zero it first. Your last example shows Martin zeroing out the extended_classification if it is less than 32. This was because prior to some 2017 commits LASzip wasn't propagating extended_classification to classification, and as such a reader would only expect one to be set. I agree with you that both ways should work. Conceptually though I feel this PR does follow the logic of LASzip more closely. Myself I would have gone purely for an is_extended_point_type() check, but LASzip tends to not use this. |
I can confirm that this branch works well. |
thanks for the PR |
No description provided.