Geographic Information Systems Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for cartographers, geographers and GIS professionals. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Topology, I mean "real" topology, is not a new concept and it's available since a long time in GRASS gis. I won't speculate the reasons myself but, after a long period of spaghetti model dissemination, recently some attention is leaning towards Topology implementation. One tool of major importance is Postgis2.0 and one great example of a kind of topology in action is openstreetmap. Qgis developers is also generating some discussion about the subject.

My experience with Grass was great, there is nothing more pleasant than two areas sharing the same boundary and "edit time" topology check. This presentation also describes great advantages of using real topology.

Now the question:
Considering web mapping and desktop gis and with a nice argumentation based on personal experience, industry requirements, tools available, etc. Do you think that real topology is to replace spaghetti model and be widely adopted in a near future?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by whuber Oct 28 '11 at 14:40

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

The question as it is put does not appear constructive and is rather localized. There may be a good question lurking in the last sentence, especially if it could be focused. Right now, "GIS professional" covers far to wide a range of applications to allow for definite, objective replies. – whuber Oct 28 '11 at 14:40
Ok, thanks for pointing that mistake although I respectfully disagree with your anxiety to close my question. Anyway I edited the question and and I would kindly ask you, besides your personal oppinion, to reopen it and to let it open for at least some hours to pass trough the community judgement. Thanks. – Pablo Oct 28 '11 at 15:07
Your edit now asks purely for speculative replies, Pablo. You know and understand this site, so I don't need to refer you to the FAQ, but if you haven't read it recently, check out the section on what makes an unacceptable question for guidance on how you might improve this one. At this point it's perfectly clear the question should remain closed. If, after reviewing the FAQ, you still feel it should be reopened, then please flag it and provide an explanation. This will bring it to the attention of the other mods: but please don't waste their time. – whuber Oct 28 '11 at 15:15
Ok, I will change the approach and elaborate another question to comply with the site rules. This one can be deleted. Thanks. – Pablo Oct 28 '11 at 15:32
@Pablo It all comes down to the state of the popular tools. If by default they generate full chain-node topology with faces, the answer would be yes. But they dont, so IMHO the answer is no. – Ragi Yaser Burhum Oct 28 '11 at 16:43