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;
    }

}

如果你正在寻找一个java脚本库，有一个javascript谷歌maps v3扩展的Polygon类，以检测是否有一个点驻留在它里面。

var polygon = new google.maps.Polygon([], "#000000", 1, 1, "#336699", 0.3);
var isWithinPolygon = polygon.containsLatLng(40, -90);

谷歌扩展Github

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

Scala版本的解决方案由nirg(假设边界矩形预检查是单独完成的):

def inside(p: Point, polygon: Array[Point], bounds: Bounds): Boolean = {

  val length = polygon.length

  @tailrec
  def oddIntersections(i: Int, j: Int, tracker: Boolean): Boolean = {
    if (i == length)
      tracker
    else {
      val intersects = (polygon(i).y > p.y) != (polygon(j).y > p.y) && p.x < (polygon(j).x - polygon(i).x) * (p.y - polygon(i).y) / (polygon(j).y - polygon(i).y) + polygon(i).x
      oddIntersections(i + 1, i, if (intersects) !tracker else tracker)
    }
  }

  oddIntersections(0, length - 1, tracker = false)
}

Like David Segonds' answer suggests I use an approach of angle summation derived from my concave polygon drawing algorithm. It relies of adding up the approximate angles of subtriangles around the point to obtain a weight. A weight around 1.0 means the point is inside the triangle, a weight around 0.0 means outside, a weight around -1.0 is what happens when inside the polygon but in reverse order (like with one of the halves of a bowtie-shaped tetragon) and a weight of NAN if exactly on an edge. The reason it's not slow is that angles don't need to be estimated accurately at all. Holes can be handled by treating them as separate polygons and subtracting the weights.

typedef struct { double x, y; } xy_t;

xy_t sub_xy(xy_t a, xy_t b)
{
    a.x -= b.x;
    a.y -= b.y;
    return a;
}

double calc_sharp_subtriangle_pixel_weight(xy_t p0, xy_t p1)
{
    xy_t rot, r0, r1;
    double weight;

    // Rotate points (unnormalised)
    rot = sub_xy(p1, p0);
    r0.x = rot.x*p0.y - rot.y*p0.x;
    r0.y = rot.x*p0.x + rot.y*p0.y;
    r1.y = rot.x*p1.x + rot.y*p1.y;

    // Calc weight
    weight = subtriangle_angle_approx(r1.y, r0.x) - subtriangle_angle_approx(r0.y, r0.x);

    return weight;
}

double calc_sharp_polygon_pixel_weight(xy_t p, xy_t *corner, int corner_count)
{
    int i;
    xy_t p0, p1;
    double weight = 0.;

    p0 = sub_xy(corner[corner_count-1], p);
    for (i=0; i < corner_count; i++)
    {
        // Transform corner coordinates
        p1 = sub_xy(corner[i], p);

        // Calculate weight for each subtriangle
        weight += calc_sharp_subtriangle_pixel_weight(p0, p1);
        p0 = p1;
    }

    return weight;
}

因此，对于多边形的每一段，都形成一个子三角形，并计算点，然后旋转每个子三角形以计算其近似角度并添加到权重。

调用subtriangle_angle_approx(y, x)可以替换为atan2(y, x) / (2.*pi)，但是一个非常粗略的近似值就足够精确了:

double subtriangle_angle_approx(double y, double x)
{
    double angle, d;
    int obtuse;

    if (x == 0.)
        return NAN;

    obtuse = fabs(y) > fabs(x);
    if (obtuse)
        swap_double(&y, &x);

    // Core of the approximation, a very loosely approximate atan(y/x) / (2.*pi) over ]-1 , 1[
    d = y / x;
    angle = 0.13185 * d;

    if (obtuse)
        angle = sign(d)*0.25 - angle;

    return angle;
}

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;
}