如果你正在使用谷歌Map SDK，想要检查一个点是否在一个多边形内，你可以尝试使用GMSGeometryContainsLocation。效果很好!!它是这样运作的，

if GMSGeometryContainsLocation(point, polygon, true) {
    print("Inside this polygon.")
} else {
    print("outside this polygon")
}

这里是参考资料:https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/ios-sdk/reference/group___geometry_utils#gaba958d3776d49213404af249419d0ffd

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)
}

以下是M. Katz基于Nirg方法的答案的JavaScript变体:

function pointIsInPoly(p, polygon) {
    var isInside = false;
    var minX = polygon[0].x, maxX = polygon[0].x;
    var minY = polygon[0].y, maxY = polygon[0].y;
    for (var n = 1; n < polygon.length; n++) {
        var q = polygon[n];
        minX = Math.min(q.x, minX);
        maxX = Math.max(q.x, maxX);
        minY = Math.min(q.y, minY);
        maxY = Math.max(q.y, maxY);
    }

    if (p.x < minX || p.x > maxX || p.y < minY || p.y > maxY) {
        return false;
    }

    var i = 0, j = polygon.length - 1;
    for (i, j; i < polygon.length; j = i++) {
        if ( (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 ) {
            isInside = !isInside;
        }
    }

    return isInside;
}

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

下面是Rust版本的@nirg答案(Philipp Lenssen javascript版本) 我给出这个答案是因为我从这个网站得到了很多帮助，我翻译javascript版本rust作为一个练习，希望可以帮助一些人，最后一个原因是，在我的工作中，我会把这段代码翻译成一个wasm，以提高我的画布的性能，这是一个开始。我的英语很差……,请原谅我 ｀

pub struct Point {
    x: f32,
    y: f32,
}
pub fn point_is_in_poly(pt: Point, polygon: &Vec<Point>) -> bool {
    let mut is_inside = false;

    let max_x = polygon.iter().map(|pt| pt.x).reduce(f32::max).unwrap();
    let min_x = polygon.iter().map(|pt| pt.x).reduce(f32::min).unwrap();
    let max_y = polygon.iter().map(|pt| pt.y).reduce(f32::max).unwrap();
    let min_y = polygon.iter().map(|pt| pt.y).reduce(f32::min).unwrap();

    if pt.x < min_x || pt.x > max_x || pt.y < min_y || pt.y > max_y {
        return is_inside;
    }

    let len = polygon.len();
    let mut j = len - 1;

    for i in 0..len {
        let y_i_value = polygon[i].y > pt.y;
        let y_j_value = polygon[j].y > pt.y;
        let last_check = (polygon[j].x - polygon[i].x) * (pt.y - polygon[i].y)
            / (polygon[j].y - polygon[i].y)
            + polygon[i].x;
        if y_i_value != y_j_value && pt.x < last_check {
            is_inside = !is_inside;
        }
        j = i;
    }
    is_inside
}


let pt = Point {
    x: 1266.753,
    y: 97.655,
};
let polygon = vec![
    Point {
        x: 725.278,
        y: 203.586,
    },
    Point {
        x: 486.831,
        y: 441.931,
    },
    Point {
        x: 905.77,
        y: 445.241,
    },
    Point {
        x: 1026.649,
        y: 201.931,
    },
];
let pt1 = Point {
    x: 725.278,
    y: 203.586,
};
let pt2 = Point {
    x: 872.652,
    y: 321.103,
};
println!("{}", point_is_in_poly(pt, &polygon));// false
println!("{}", point_is_in_poly(pt1, &polygon)); // true
println!("{}", point_is_in_poly(pt2, &polygon));// true

`

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;
}