GIS file for 4 scenarios

[agrignard]

We will need to provide for each of the 4 scenario 3 differents shapefile: landuse, building and road

So far a first step has been made in this commit https://github.com/CityScope/CSL_HCMC/commit/1526e609b3d465306432c17680a3663b9b408de4 where th Scenario2/LandUSe_Scenario2 has been pushed.

So what we miss now is:

Scenario 0 : District 4 as it really is in 2021

Scenario 1: District 4 as it is but with the 2030 population (Increase of density)

Scenario2: Vision towards 2030. Accepted 2014

Scenario 3: Utopian Vision Autonomous resilient communities. Human scaled cities (SDMC + ARC + CS MIT ML) - 2021.

[popabczhang]

@agrignard, this is a great, clear data request! Thank you!

[agrignard]

First iteration with GIS for the 4 scenarios + Population (still some adjustment that will be discussed later together but the file look pretty promising) https://github.com/CityScope/CSL_HCMC/commit/e4449b8508fc00d0c1ef6598c901c5a6ee99a068

[agrignard]

Ok so after checking the last commit it seems that we are close to close this issue @nqlong-vlab maybe for future issue if you can refer in your message commit that its fixing an issue (just right #1 in the message of your commit) then we can be notified that a specific commit has been made on a specific issue.

I let this issue open for now just in case there are some slight change to do especially according to #9

[Leon-Carto]

@agrignard I agree. I will do in the next issues.

[agrignard]

OK so the data looks great now but I would say they allmost look to great;-) There was actually an issue or a discussion somewhere about the fact that you cannot send the vector layer to cityIO because it was too big

I am afraid that they are a bit to heavy and actually overdefined for shat we need to do. Let me explain this with an example for the landuse would it be possible to drasticaly reduce the size/number/definiton of the polygon. I think at the end we only need the outline isn't it?

If you take those obejcts for instance , why dont we just store them with only the evenvelopep of the area, this will greatly sipmify the back end work

[Hai-Hoang-88]

@agrignard can you elaborate your idea about "reducing number of point"? Maybe some quick sketches about it?

[agrignard]

By number of point I mean tha a polygon is made of a list of points. Depending on the definition you can have 100 hundreds points to define only one polygon whereas you might need less.

In this case the original form in yellow is made of many points I don't know exactly but something like 30 points I guess and it could be replace by the white shape which is only made of 4 points.

This example is volontary drastically different and made by hand so that you get the concept. There are many tools to simplified a geometry by keeping its topology.

Of course you don't want to do it by hand I suggest to have allow at this kind of methodology https://locationtech.github.io/jts/javadoc/org/locationtech/jts/simplify/DouglasPeuckerSimplifier.html

or this one in QGIS https://qgis.org/api/2.2/classQgsTopologyPreservingSimplifier.html

[Hai-Hoang-88]

@agrignard thank you. We will look into it.

[Hai-Hoang-88]

@LAAP: after working with Front_End, I figured out we will have 3 interaction models (plate) presenting 3 urban structures (landuse). So to control the year (2021/2030) (which will control the population), we must use tablet to send that signal. In that case, what will happen if audience select the year 2021 and load physical model as scenario 2? Technically we will have 6 scenarios: {scenario 0: 2021+interaction plate 1, scenario 1: 2030+ interaction plate 1, missing: 2021 + interaction plate 2, scenario 2: 2030 + interaction plate 2, missing: 2021 + interaction plate 3, scenario 3: 2030 + interaction plate 3}. By thinking about it, I think of 2 options:

1. Revise our story telling
2. a mechanism to allow audience fit our only 4 scenarios.

Please lets me know your thinking. Thank you in advance

[Hai-Hoang-88]

By number of point I mean tha a polygon is made of a list of points. Depending on the definition you can have 100 hundreds points to define only one polygon whereas you might need less.

In this case the original form in yellow is made of many points I don't know exactly but something like 30 points I guess and it could be replace by the white shape which is only made of 4 points.

This example is volontary drastically different and made by hand so that you get the concept. There are many tools to simplified a geometry by keeping its topology.

Of course you don't want to do it by hand I suggest to have allow at this kind of methodology https://locationtech.github.io/jts/javadoc/org/locationtech/jts/simplify/DouglasPeuckerSimplifier.html

or this one in QGIS https://qgis.org/api/2.2/classQgsTopologyPreservingSimplifier.html

I see we can simplify this GIS file, however we have already printed our 3D model base on this GIS file. It may create a certain differences.

[LAAP]

Dear @Hai-Hoang-88 ,

I have moved the Question about the 3, 4 or 6 scenarios into a new issue

[agrignard]

For the simplification of the shape ,IT IS NEEDED as CityScope doesn't allow to push so highly definite files and even for any modules it doesn't make sense to have to high level definition . Even if the 3D model is already in process actually (it would have been great to agree on this together before and it might have also simplified the construction of the model) it's ok to simplify the shape that you will display on it if they are not too simplified non one will be able to notice (remember that the definition of your screen is not infinite either so even super precise shape will be simplified by default on the rendering)

Do you have a first iteration of a simplified version?

[LAAP]

Dear @Hai-Hoang-88 , @agrignard et al. Please, let us know your thoughts about:

A- Keeping the 4 scenarios as it is, and making a "Twin" 3D plates for scenarios 0 and 1. The Twin plates can have a label with the name of the scenarios, and even, different level of transparency or color.

B- Having only 3 scenarios scenarios, so we remove the scenario number 1, and we have 3 completely different 3D plates for the 3 different scenarios

[agrignard]

This is strongly link to issue #9 so we close it