[GeoJSON] Plug-Pull request to finalize a CRS-free I-D revision

[Sean Gillies]

Stefan, all:

I think we should continue with your proposal, but I hear that other
authors are having second thoughts about removing CRS after all. Allan?
Howard?

GitHub's new maps for .geojson files is revealing a lot about how people
perceive the format. Here, Ben Balter (of GitHub) says support for other
CRS is being considered:

  https://twitter.com/BenBalter/status/345280641715298305

I assume he doesn't mean different map tiles, but reprojection of Illinois
State Plane X to Web Mercator. They'll need CRS in the file to accomplish
this across all repositories. I'd rather the City of Chicago and everyone
else did their GeoJSON in CRS84, but it seems we'll have to get GitHub on
board to do so.

And here's someone who didn't realize that GeoJSON covered CRS at all:

  https://twitter.com/iandees/status/345281028132315137

IMO, this is because we didn't do it well and good examples never appeared.



On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Stefan Drees <stefan at drees.name> wrote:

>  Hi Tim,
>
> yes I know, that there are partial clean-up attempts with focus on a
> specific topic (like your patch #6 removing crsURN) but not transporting
> the document into a consistent state, which is ok, but I think as time goes
> by not the best we can achieve. As I had to base my clean-up patch on some
> revision and repo, I picked the latest you merged, to be on the safe side.
>
> In the light of the latest somehow diverging discussions, I thought a
> minimal consensus edition might help remain patient and have a clear view
> on the remanining tasks before entering the public comment phase, that will
> start when submitting the first revision to IETF I-D queue. The submission
> will just be the beginning :-)
>
> So applying the patch #10 as wrap-up gives us all the advantage of a clean
> start for the finish and if many of the authors meet in person during this
> north american conference in Minneapolis, MN, USA all the better, to start
> placing the final golden minimal CRS statements into the cleaned-up
> consistent document as close as possible to a broad consensus (in my
> understanding of the exchanged messages).
>
> My proposal is thus:
>   a) Apply #10,
>   b) some discuss the final statements about the relation of Coordinate
> Reference Systems and GeoJSON during the conference,
>   c) short discussion on concrete pull request based on the outcome of b)
> then
>   d) merge and
>   ...)
>   r) ready for submission we are :-).
>
> Good idea? Not so good idea? Please share your thoughts.
>
> Stefan.
>
>
> On 21.05.13 18:57, Tim Schaub wrote:
>
> Note also that I have a pull request outstanding to remove crsURN:
> https://github.com/GeoJSONWG/draft-geojson/pull/6
>
>  I think we'd all agree that there needs to be some discussion of CRS in
> the spec.  This is missing from your pull request.  Minor work to add it
> in, but it needs to be there.
>
>  I imagine a number of us will be at the FOSS4G-NA conference through the
> end of the week.  So while discussion on this list might stagnate, we could
> have some in-person discussion about this.
>
>  Tim
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Stefan Drees <stefan at drees.name> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I snet a pull request, where I:
>>
>> * simply removed the CRS (and any crsURI stuff),
>> * also removed my intermediate notes,
>> * and removed the now unused references to HTTP, TLS, URx RFCs,
>> * rephrased the Polygon section for readability,
>> * edited some lines to remain inside line length limit,
>> * updated the date to May 2013,
>> * enhanced the security considerations section (using the JSON Patch
>>   RFC as role model) to somehow delegate security back to JSON where it
>>   belongs, as we do not add anything security relevant on top
>> * and sync'ed the section number for the bounding box references inside
>>   our document.
>>
>> The pull request #10 is at
>>
>> https://github.com/GeoJSONWG/draft-geojson/pull/10
>>
>> If one likes to se the outcome of merging it, maybe
>>
>> http://sdrees.github.io/draft-geojson/draft.html
>>
>> is a good place or
>>
>> http://sdrees.github.io/draft-geojson/draft.txt
>>
>> This patch should merge the essence of our latests planned changes for
>> the to be submitted draft (as far as I understood the ideas of most on this
>> list).
>>
>> Am I right? Not so right? What do you think?
>>
>> PS: If you read an archived version of this mail, some links stated in
>> above text may result in HTTP 404 Not found as these mostly point to
>> intermediate working material.
>>
>> All the best,
>> Stefan Drees.
>> _______________________________________________
>> GeoJSON mailing list
>> GeoJSON at lists.geojson.org
>> http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org
>>
>
>
>
>  --
> Tim Schaub
> OpenGeo http://opengeo.org/
> Expert service straight from the developers.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GeoJSON mailing list
> GeoJSON at lists.geojson.org
> http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org
>
>


-- 
Sean Gillies
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/attachments/20130613/b70b2232/attachment.htm>