Skip to main content

geographics - Generating different GeoPaths for multiple equivalent segments


Is there an efficient and elegant method so that multiple calls of GeoPath for the same segment (path) yield visibly separate segments on a map?


For instance, this code calls two "equivalent" GeoPaths (from China to Brazil):


GeoGraphics[
 {Red, Thick, 
  GeoPath[#] & /@ 
   {{Entity["Country", "China"], Entity["Country", "Brazil"]},
    {Entity["Country", "China"], Entity["Country", "Brazil"]}}},

 GeoRange -> "World"]

Two GeoPaths overlapping


Because the GeoPaths are the same, the two overlap and appear as a single segment or path.


The same problem arises if one uses specific locations, such as:


{CityData["BuenosAires", "Coordinates"], CityData["Beijing", "Coordinates"]}

I'd like to displace each path slightly, so that the two paths (or in general $n$ paths) appear separate (even if $n-1$ paths are not geodesics). Note that such displacement is done automatically in renderings of edges in Multigraphs. (Background: I want to plot a complicated multi-city itinerary in which several legs of the trip were between the same pair of cities.)


I could do this "by hand," for each such set of overlapping paths (either by displacing, or using dashes and coloring, etc.), but I'm seeking a far more elegant and automatic method.


Ideally, I think Wolfram should implement an option for GeoGraphics such as MultiSegment -> True which draws the $n$ separate paths, even if they are specified in a non-sequential order such as:



{{Entity["Country", "India"], Entity["Country", "China"]}, 
 {Entity["Country", "China"], Entity["Country", "Brazil"]},
 {Entity["Country", "Brazil"], Entity["Country", "Chile"]},
 {Entity["Country", "Chile"], Entity["Country", "Brazil"]},
 {Entity["Country", "Brazil"], Entity["Country", "China"]}}

Answer



A completely different answer, this time ignoring Geo methods and focusing on Graph connectivity: just place the Graph object on the map.


Take your entity pairs:


ents = {
    {Entity["Country", "India"], Entity["Country", "China"]},

    {Entity["Country", "China"], Entity["Country", "Brazil"]},
    {Entity["Country", "Brazil"], Entity["Country", "Chile"]},
    {Entity["Country", "Chile"], Entity["Country", "Brazil"]},
    {Entity["Country", "Brazil"], Entity["Country", "China"]}
};

Draw a map with those entities. This time we use the Mollweide projection and a vector background:


map = GeoGraphics[ents, GeoProjection -> "Mollweide", GeoBackground -> "CountryBorders"];

Extract the actual projection used by GeoGraphics. Recall that GeoGraphics adds parameters to the projection to adapt it to the situation, unless those parameters are explicit:



proj = GeoProjection /. Options[map, GeoProjection]
(* {"Mollweide", "Centering" -> GeoPosition[{-1.07727, 29.5607}]} *)

Now, eliminate duplicate entities and find their respective projected coordinates:


uents = Union[Flatten[ents]]
(* {Entity["Country", "Brazil"], Entity["Country", "Chile"], 
    Entity["Country", "China"], Entity["Country", "India"]} *)

coords = GeoGridPosition[GeoPosition[uents], proj][[1]]
(* {{-1.31625, -0.19348}, {-1.44548, -0.571304},

    {1.04746, 0.66214}, {0.717329, 0.384687}} *)

Construct a Graph object using those coordinates:


graph = Graph[uents, UndirectedEdge @@@ ents, VertexCoordinates -> coords]

And finally show the map and the graph together (Show should be able to merge directly the GeoGraphics and Graph objects, but currently we need to extract the Graphics from GeoGraphics):


Show[map[[1]], graph]

enter image description here


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
Post a Comment
Read more

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more