Java版本:

public class Geocode {
    private float latitude;
    private float longitude;

    public Geocode() {
    }

    public Geocode(float latitude, float longitude) {
        this.latitude = latitude;
        this.longitude = longitude;
    }

    public float getLatitude() {
        return latitude;
    }

    public void setLatitude(float latitude) {
        this.latitude = latitude;
    }

    public float getLongitude() {
        return longitude;
    }

    public void setLongitude(float longitude) {
        this.longitude = longitude;
    }
}

public class GeoPolygon {
    private ArrayList<Geocode> points;

    public GeoPolygon() {
        this.points = new ArrayList<Geocode>();
    }

    public GeoPolygon(ArrayList<Geocode> points) {
        this.points = points;
    }

    public GeoPolygon add(Geocode geo) {
        points.add(geo);
        return this;
    }

    public boolean inside(Geocode geo) {
        int i, j;
        boolean c = false;
        for (i = 0, j = points.size() - 1; i < points.size(); j = i++) {
            if (((points.get(i).getLongitude() > geo.getLongitude()) != (points.get(j).getLongitude() > geo.getLongitude())) &&
                    (geo.getLatitude() < (points.get(j).getLatitude() - points.get(i).getLatitude()) * (geo.getLongitude() - points.get(i).getLongitude()) / (points.get(j).getLongitude() - points.get(i).getLongitude()) + points.get(i).getLatitude()))
                c = !c;
        }
        return c;
    }

}

当我还是Michael Stonebraker手下的一名研究员时，我做了一些关于这方面的工作——你知道，就是那位提出了Ingres、PostgreSQL等的教授。

我们意识到最快的方法是首先做一个边界框，因为它非常快。如果它在边界框之外，它就在外面。否则，你就得做更辛苦的工作……

如果你想要一个伟大的算法，看看开源项目PostgreSQL的源代码的地理工作…

我想指出的是，我们从来没有深入了解过左撇子和右撇子(也可以表达为“内”和“外”的问题……

更新

BKB's link provided a good number of reasonable algorithms. I was working on Earth Science problems and therefore needed a solution that works in latitude/longitude, and it has the peculiar problem of handedness - is the area inside the smaller area or the bigger area? The answer is that the "direction" of the verticies matters - it's either left-handed or right handed and in this way you can indicate either area as "inside" any given polygon. As such, my work used solution three enumerated on that page.

此外，我的工作使用单独的函数进行“在线”测试。

.．.因为有人问:我们发现当垂直的数量超过某个数字时，边界盒测试是最好的——如果有必要，在做更长的测试之前做一个非常快速的测试……边界框是通过简单地将最大的x，最小的x，最大的y和最小的y放在一起，组成一个框的四个点来创建的……

另一个提示是:我们在网格空间中进行了所有更复杂的“调光”计算，都是在平面上的正点上进行的，然后重新投影到“真实”的经度/纬度上，从而避免了在经度180线交叉时和处理极地时可能出现的环绕错误。工作好了!

这似乎在R中工作(为丑陋道歉，希望看到更好的版本!)。

pnpoly <- function(nvert,vertx,verty,testx,testy){
          c <- FALSE
          j <- nvert 
          for (i in 1:nvert){
              if( ((verty[i]>testy) != (verty[j]>testy)) && 
   (testx < (vertx[j]-vertx[i])*(testy-verty[i])/(verty[j]-verty[i])+vertx[i]))
            {c <- !c}
             j <- i}
   return(c)}

bobobobo引用的Eric Haines的文章真的很棒。特别有趣的是比较算法性能的表格;角度求和法和其他方法比起来真的很差。同样有趣的是，使用查找网格将多边形进一步细分为“in”和“out”扇区的优化可以使测试非常快，即使是在> 1000条边的多边形上。

不管怎样，现在还为时过早，但我的投票倾向于“交叉”方法，我认为这几乎就是Mecki所描述的。然而，我发现大卫·伯克(David Bourke)对它进行了最简洁的描述和编纂。我喜欢它不需要真正的三角函数，它适用于凸和凹，而且随着边数的增加，它的表现也相当不错。

顺便说一下，这是Eric Haines文章中的一个性能表，在随机多边形上进行测试。

                       number of edges per polygon
                         3       4      10      100    1000
MacMartin               2.9     3.2     5.9     50.6    485
Crossings               3.1     3.4     6.8     60.0    624
Triangle Fan+edge sort  1.1     1.8     6.5     77.6    787
Triangle Fan            1.2     2.1     7.3     85.4    865
Barycentric             2.1     3.8    13.8    160.7   1665
Angle Summation        56.2    70.4   153.6   1403.8  14693

Grid (100x100)          1.5     1.5     1.6      2.1      9.8
Grid (20x20)            1.7     1.7     1.9      5.7     42.2
Bins (100)              1.8     1.9     2.7     15.1    117
Bins (20)               2.1     2.2     3.7     26.3    278

nirg回答的Swift版本:

extension CGPoint {
    func isInsidePolygon(vertices: [CGPoint]) -> Bool {
        guard !vertices.isEmpty else { return false }
        var j = vertices.last!, c = false
        for i in vertices {
            let a = (i.y > y) != (j.y > y)
            let b = (x < (j.x - i.x) * (y - i.y) / (j.y - i.y) + i.x)
            if a && b { c = !c }
            j = i
        }
        return c
    }
}

我知道这是旧的，但这里是一个在Cocoa实现的光线投射算法，如果有人感兴趣的话。不确定这是最有效的方法，但它可能会帮助别人。

- (BOOL)shape:(NSBezierPath *)path containsPoint:(NSPoint)point
{
    NSBezierPath *currentPath = [path bezierPathByFlatteningPath];
    BOOL result;
    float aggregateX = 0; //I use these to calculate the centroid of the shape
    float aggregateY = 0;
    NSPoint firstPoint[1];
    [currentPath elementAtIndex:0 associatedPoints:firstPoint];
    float olderX = firstPoint[0].x;
    float olderY = firstPoint[0].y;
    NSPoint interPoint;
    int noOfIntersections = 0;

    for (int n = 0; n < [currentPath elementCount]; n++) {
        NSPoint points[1];
        [currentPath elementAtIndex:n associatedPoints:points];
        aggregateX += points[0].x;
        aggregateY += points[0].y;
    }

    for (int n = 0; n < [currentPath elementCount]; n++) {
        NSPoint points[1];

        [currentPath elementAtIndex:n associatedPoints:points];
        //line equations in Ax + By = C form
        float _A_FOO = (aggregateY/[currentPath elementCount]) - point.y;  
        float _B_FOO = point.x - (aggregateX/[currentPath elementCount]);
        float _C_FOO = (_A_FOO * point.x) + (_B_FOO * point.y);

        float _A_BAR = olderY - points[0].y;
        float _B_BAR = points[0].x - olderX;
        float _C_BAR = (_A_BAR * olderX) + (_B_BAR * olderY);

        float det = (_A_FOO * _B_BAR) - (_A_BAR * _B_FOO);
        if (det != 0) {
            //intersection points with the edges
            float xIntersectionPoint = ((_B_BAR * _C_FOO) - (_B_FOO * _C_BAR)) / det;
            float yIntersectionPoint = ((_A_FOO * _C_BAR) - (_A_BAR * _C_FOO)) / det;
            interPoint = NSMakePoint(xIntersectionPoint, yIntersectionPoint);
            if (olderX <= points[0].x) {
                //doesn't matter in which direction the ray goes, so I send it right-ward.
                if ((interPoint.x >= olderX && interPoint.x <= points[0].x) && (interPoint.x > point.x)) {  
                    noOfIntersections++;
                }
            } else {
                if ((interPoint.x >= points[0].x && interPoint.x <= olderX) && (interPoint.x > point.x)) {
                     noOfIntersections++;
                } 
            }
        }
        olderX = points[0].x;
        olderY = points[0].y;
    }
    if (noOfIntersections % 2 == 0) {
        result = FALSE;
    } else {
        result = TRUE;
    }
    return result;
}