[GeoJSON] Point as list of one point, or list of coords

[Allan Doyle]

I could get behind different levels of geojson. In fact, it seems to  
me that if we define it right, people can choose which specific  
geometry types they support. If you're going to write a "red dot" app  
that only needs points, why bother implementing all the rest? Better  
that you feel comfortable using GeoJSON Point objects than feel like  
you need to invent yet another representation.

Of if you're only dealing with GPS tracks, maybe you want Points and  
LineStrings, etc.

GeoJSON - "the Chinese Menu of geo formats."



On Apr 13, 2007, at 15:27, Christopher Schmidt wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 05:16:45PM +0100, Martin Daly wrote:
>>> Good enough for me. I tweaked RFC-001.
>>
>> I've further tweaked it, to add multi-s, polygon exterior and hole- 
>> s and
>> (lovingly hand-crafted and therefore prone to syntax errors)  
>> examples of
>> all of the geometry types.
>
> My previous response was not really clear on how I feel.
>
>  * I am in favor of a full JSON-based feature representation. (This
>    obviously has to include multi-geometries.)
>  * I am in favor of a 'simple' GeoJSON conformance level that does  
> *not*
>    require support for multiple geometries.
>
> I've implemented a GeoJSON RESTful server. It maps JSON into KML,
> GeoRSS, GML/WFS, and the OSM file format. It doesn't have multi
> geometries. It lets me scribble on a map in OpenLayers and save the  
> JSON
> data to the server.
>
> It does pretty well. It works. And it has no support for multigeoms.
>
> This is not a 'full' mapping of every possible type of data: it's a
> description of data along the lines of what Google's "My Maps" service
> can handle.
>
> I think this level of functionality is extremely useful -- it's
> translatable to many formats without the need for the full support of
> GML and multiple geometries.
>
> So, I feel that:
>
>    There should be a 'simple' conformance which does not support
>    Multiple Geometries. This simple conformance only requires support
>    for Point, Line, Polygon, Box. (I'm unconvinced on whether polygons
>    need to support 'holes'/multiple rings.)
>
> Then, I think a second level of conformance should be created, which
> includes the functionality just described in the RFC-001 wiki page.
>
> IN other words: I'd like RFC-001 to go back to what it was, and  
> RFC-002
> to be created with what RFC-001 currently is.
>
> Regards,
> -- 
> Christopher Schmidt
> MetaCarta

-- 
Allan Doyle
+1.781.433.2695
adoyle at eogeo.org