Consequences Receptor only allows for Point Locations, not polygons

When computing losses for some consequences receptors they may need a more complex geospatial relationship than a point. This means we need to allow for flexibility in the geometry utilized to connect a hazard to a receptor. @slawler found this issue when trying to use building footprints to define the hazard at a structure.

This advancement will be required for erosion at structures, so this will become critical path soon.

Describe the solution you'd like
Adding an interface or two in the geography package for points polygons and lines might be useful. It is hard to say what is appropriate, we shouldnt reinvent the entire feature, features, etc interface structure in gdal.