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

[Chris Holmes]

To throw out another option, we could do what KML did which was 
basically drop individual multis (point line polygon) in favor of only 
one collection geometry object.  I believe they called it a MultiGeometry.

Allan Doyle wrote:
> 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
> 

-- 
Chris Holmes
The Open Planning Project
http://topp.openplans.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cholmes.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 282 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/attachments/20070413/68cbde32/attachment.vcf>