CGAL users discussion list

["Sebastien Loriot (GeometryFactory)" <>]

If you are outside of the arrangement, then maybe you can use the
edge that is the closest to your query point. If you have some convexity
hypothesis, then it's probably only a matter of some orientation tests
on the edge on the boundary.

Sebastien.

On 1/16/25 03:44, Zohar Levi ( via cgal-discuss Mailing 
List) wrote:
> Sorry, I haven't considered it deeply. It's not my code, and I was 
> aiming for a quick solution.
>
> I said triangulation, but it's a triangulation that is held in an 
> Arrangement_2, which does some intersections. It's attached to 
> Arr_landmarks_point_location for point location. I could probably 
> rethink the whole design unless you have a quick tip. It just seemed 
> weird that the point location can't give me any useful info about a 
> point that is epsilon away from my shape.
>
> On 16/1/25 9:28, \"Sebastien Loriot (GeometryFactory)\"" 
> ( via cgal-discuss Mailing List) wrote:
> > If you have a triangulation, why don't you use it for the point location?
> >
> > I'm probably missing something...
> >
> > Sebastien.
> >
> > On 1/15/25 21:21, Zohar Levi ( via cgal-discuss 
> > Mailing List) wrote:
> > > I have a triangulation embedded in a unit disk (after Tutte).
> > > I'm doing point location using 
> > > CGAL::Arr_landmarks_point_location<Arrangement_2>.
> > > Due to numerical issues, a point that I'm looking for falls in the 
> > > unbounded face but an epsilon distance from the boundary.
> > > The return value is the unbounded face, which seems like returning 
> > > failure. Since a search has already been done, is there a way to get 
> > > more useful info, e.g., closest boundary edge? Otherwise, I'll need 
> > > to search again with AABB or something.