And it would be useful if such a command could output more and more detailed geohashes (up to a given number of digits) that would fall within said entity. For example, output the 6 2-digit geohashes from the command above, and then break the missing 37 geohashes from the first two commands into their 32 3-digit geohashes and see which of those still match geoq filter contains.
Also, is there a reason that the gh covering and filter intersects subcommands have different names? Maybe I'm missing an obvious reason. Should these be named the same?
If I'm not mistaken, these two commands produce the same output.
But there is no corresponding option to the
gh
subcommand to find the geohashes that are fully contained within the entity:And it would be useful if such a command could output more and more detailed geohashes (up to a given number of digits) that would fall within said entity. For example, output the 6 2-digit geohashes from the command above, and then break the missing 37 geohashes from the first two commands into their 32 3-digit geohashes and see which of those still match
geoq filter contains
.