Hi Tim,

I implemented this code, but non-iteratively...that is, I collect 'chains' of points that are all near each other and then when all chains are gathered, each set of points in a chain are set to be at the point cloud's centroid, which effectively locks up the points.

As we discussed, a chain of points all within TOL of each other 'cascade' into one collapsed point, even though the extrema of the point chain are more than TOL apart.

But what I also discovered is that my non-iterative problem (find all chains first, "edit" all geometry second) will result in geometry where some points are _within_ TOL of each other.

For example:

Points A, B, C, D and E are in a circular arc whose center is (1), and whose radius is slightly smaller than TOL.

Point E is directly above C, such that the distance from E to any point is > TOL (that is, E is enough "up" that it is more than TOL from A, C and E.

Point 2 is the 'centroid' of ABCDE - that is, A, B, C, D and E will all end up at point 2 after locking up points.

When this happens, the distance from 2 to E can easily be below TOL.

I think my question is: do I care??? :-)

That is, at this point am I done snapping and I go home, or do I then need to re-run a snap to detect that 2 and E are close and merge them?

Is the above pattern a legitimate authoring technique or 'too much detail in too small of a place'?

cheers

ben