On the question "Importing 3D geometries into PostGIS?", I took the time to vote-to-close and explain. It was far too broad and lacked sample data. It requests information about three fileformats.
Other filetypes I wish to import are: x3d, 3ds, dae ...
It's extremely broad to the point of being useless. The title is "How to import 3D geometries into PostGIS". There are a ton of 3d geometries for PostGIS. You have topogeoms which can be 3d, you have POLYHEDRALSURFACES. You have x,y,z vertix MULTIPOINTS. My point is you can store these in multiple ways: you may as well just ask how do you store and access data on a computer.
Moreover, the internal fileformats are mostly proprietary now for these 3d exports. I refined that question when a
.dae example was provided to be specific to a
.dae file. A moderator, who is no doubt great with ESRI, but lacks any experience with PostGIS has rolled back my revision (maintaining the question in the original form), and reopened it.
Seeking to avoid the political confrontation. I left this question alone. I asked a better question with multiple DAE examples pertaining to just DAE. The opp, Midavalo, migrated just my answer back to the original question forcing a political resolution. This is not a satisfactory solution. I worked on both reforming the question, and addressing just DAE importation process. Now it looks like I'm answering about 3d imports and I'm only addressing the COLLADA (dae) importation process.
If anyone else can review these actions it would be greatly appreciated.
- Accept my attempt to narrow the scope the question.
- Allow me to self-answer my own question which only address COLLADA.
And, as a side note, we should not be migrating answers against the questioner's will. I'm cool assuming that some time, but clearly in this case Midavalo did something that I was going to certainly view as hostile.