[GeoJSON] Aligning implementations
noreply at geocartic.com
Mon Apr 9 12:51:54 PDT 2007
Chris Holmes wrote:
> Ok, I'd like to take a shot at lining up the proto-implementations and
> perhaps putting some words down on the wiki.
> The big open question for me right now is if geometry is a top level
> property, as in OpenLayers/PCL at the moment
> Or do we want geometry as just one of the properties:
What does every feature have? Some way to be identified (id), some
geometry (geometry), and a bunch of other attributes (properties).
Can you have a feature without geometry? No, that's silly.
Can you have a feature without a title? Of course. We're talking about
the JSON representation of geographic features, not documents.
Ok, I know that's a bit narrow, but continuing in that same vein - if
I'm writing an application that reads GeoJSON, I'm going to make it
break if a feature comes in without a geometry. If a feature comes in
without a title or a link, I'll continue on without flinching. That
suggests to me that geometry and title don't belong in the same place
(both under properties).
Of course, all of this only becomes a rule if enough people think in the
Are things like envelopes and links fundamental components of a
geographic feature for others? Obviously, I see utility in more than
what I've proposed - but I think it makes sense to sort out requirements
before getting into options.
More information about the geojson