-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 92
Relation and multipolygon support #115
Relation and multipolygon support #115
Conversation
# Conflicts: # overpass/api.py
f2ccb10
to
f6ba57a
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey @lukasmu,
great work! Looks really good. I added a few minor comments for discussion. Best!
A note on the Travis checks: |
Thanks for the latest commit. All my comments are addressed 👍💯 |
@mvexel @tbolender @t-g-williams What do you think? Anything holding back a merge soon? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Everything looks okay, I just added a small clarification comment.
@mvexel We should remove support for 2.7 since it's going to retire anyway soon..
@tbolender @mvexel Is there still anything that I can improve on this pull request? Or did you just not yet have the time to look into it? |
From my side everything is okay. I waited since I wanted @mvexel to have a look at it. |
Sorry guys I've been unavailable.. I'll have a look. |
Relation and multipolygon support
This pull request can be considered a follow-up to #76.
I initially started to resolve the merge conflict referenced in the pull request mentioned above. But then I decided to rewrite and optimize the geojson parsing method completely.
Finally I added a test based on real data to make sure that the parsing works correctly.Please note that the example.json file in the tests folder can be opened with any geojson viewer.