[GeoJSON] Current state of the RFC

[Chris Holmes]

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  
> GeometryCollection.
> 
>  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  
> arguments.
> 
> 	Allan
> 

-- 
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/20070423/c4c501ce/attachment.vcf>