I've 2 FDO Layer (polygon). Layer1 contains zoning and Layer2 contains small area.
The goal is to merge all polygons (1 or more) of Layer2 into only 1 polygon in each zone of Layer1.
I can do an FDO Overlay (Identity) to copy ID of zone to Layer2, but I don't know (except manually) how to merge polygons with 1 common information.
Solved! Go to Solution.
What behaviour do you want the data to have? Layer 2 merges will use Id existing or new for the merged polygons. It it necessary to merge the polygons for another step in your process? Any calculations involved?
theming by the layer 1 FeatId can make the Layer 2 polygons appear the same, but maintain the individual polygons.
Could you attach a sample of your files?
I join SDF file with 3 layers:
Layer1 contains 4 big area with infos 1 to 4
Layer2 contains 9 small area with infos from 11 to 13
In Area1 (Layer1) I've 2 polygons with INFO1=11 and 1 polygon with INFO1=12
In Area2 (Layer1) I've 1 polygon with INFO1=12
Layer2_ID contains same 9 small polygon with INFO1 (11 to 13 form Layer2) and INFO2 (1 to 4 form Layer1) obtain by GIS OVERLAY
The goal is to obtain 1 polygon (multigeometry) per INFO1 and per big AREA (INFO2)
So in Area1 I'd like to join the 2 polygon with same INFO1=11/INFO2=1 into into 1 multi polygon with INFO1=11/INFO2=1
the other polygon with INFO1=12/INFO2=1 don't change
Other INFO or ID on each polygon have no importance (keep ID or new ID, as you want)
I could do that in Lisp or DotNET with AutoCAD MPOLYGON object but I want to know if it is possible without program with FDO feature?
Well, this topic caused me a devastating headache, man...
Check the attachment out: did I understand what you were meaning..?
How did you made this?
By means of Qgis, sir.
Unfortunately my old Map2006 doesn't support the FDO connection, so I cannot say if the same result is feisible with Autocad.
>> It's a pity AutoCAD MAP can't do the same.
I'm not sure if that is a standard process, for me it's more untypical to merge adjacent polygons.
Also my sight to GIS-systems and to technical workflows handling such things show me more problems using such things than leaving them separated.
What makes it necessary for you to merge them?
- alfred -
Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register