[GeoJSON] Current state of the RFC
cholmes at openplans.org
Mon Apr 23 10:30:19 PDT 2007
Did we ever find a solution for multiple geometries? I'm fine if the
answer is 'geojson does not handle multiple geoms', and I just end up
throwing a well known text string if I get two geometries. But it'd be
nice if there was a note somewhere on the RFC about this.
As for Multi's, I'm fine with an RFC 2 plan. But again I do need to do
_something_, as I have data that comes in that format.
Allan Doyle wrote:
> I was just going to "clean up" the RFC, thinking it would be a simple
> matter of dotting some I's and crossing some T's...
> Not quite... we now have two distinct classes of geometry types.
> 1. Those which have "geometry" in the feature
> 2. Those which have "members" in the feature
> This means that you can no longer use the existence of geometry.type
> as a means of figuring out what you're dealing with.
> Furthermore, you can't a priori tell the difference between a
> MultiLineString and a GeometryCollection or a MultiPolygon and a
> From my personal perspective, this does not bother me, I don't feel
> I would ever need the multi's or the geometry collections, but for
> those of you who do, I think it warrants a little more thought.
> One solution would be to simply drop all the multi-kruft and stick
> with Point, LineString, Polygon, and Box. I'm inclined to do that and
> let the multi-people write RFC-002, but I can be swayed by cogent
The Open Planning Project
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 282 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the GeoJSON