[GeoJSON] Aligning implementations
Tim Schaub
noreply at geocartic.com
Tue Apr 10 11:25:19 PDT 2007
Chris Holmes wrote:
>
> {
> 'id': '2',
> 'default_geom': 'building'
> 'properties': {
> 'owner': 'Pete'
> 'lot': {'type': 'Polygon', ...},
> 'building': {'type': 'Polygon', ...},
> }
> }
>
Ok, I don't think there is any reason to assume that there are
limitations in any language (feature.properties[feature.default_geom]
has an equivalent anywhere).
CASE 1
If every GeoJSON feature data structure looked like:
{
'id': string,
'geometry': object,
'properties': object
}
Everybody would have one lookup for the geometry (think of it as the
default_geometry if you like): feature.geometry (or equivalent).
Then you could extend this by shoving a bunch of additional geometries
in the properties object. And your application has to be configured to
know that feature.properties.lot and feature.properties.building (or
equivalent) are going to return geometries.
CASE 2
On the other hand, if the feature data structure looked like the
lot/building example above, everybody would have two lookups to get the
geometry (feature.properties[feature.default_geom] or equivalent). And
your application still has to be configured to know that
feature.properties.lot and feature.properties.building (or equivalent)
are going to return geometries.
So, in summary, CASE 1 gives everybody a single lookup for geometry and
you can extend GeoJSON and configure your application to know about
building and lot. CASE 2 gives everybody two lookups for geometry and
you have to configure your application to know about building and lot.
Is there an advantage to CASE 2 that I am not seeing?
Tim
More information about the GeoJSON
mailing list