[GeoJSON] AsJSON(geometry)
Chris Holmes
cholmes at openplans.org
Mon Mar 19 10:16:52 PDT 2007
>>> I think that's needlessly fluffy. Once you know the typology,
>>> you can deal with anonymous arrays-of-arrays perfectly well.
>>
>> I agree and prefer:
>>
>> {"multipoint": "[[x00 y00], [x11 y11], ..., [xNN yNN]]"}
>>
> This was my initial feeling too. But I've already got objects in hand
> with point members on the Python side of my application, and I'd like
> an object or hash-oriented interface on the javascript side as well.
> Why should I pack them into anonymous arrays just to unpack them
again > at the other end?
I'm a bit more on the object approach as well. I think it's a bit more
human readable, without really all that much fluff in the big picture.
A very small multi-polygon ends up something like this:
[[[[10,10][10,20][20,20][20,15][10,10]]][[[10,10][10,20][20,20][20,15][10,10]][[11,11][11,12][12,12][11,11]]]]
(two polygons, one just exterior, one with an exterior and an interior)
Also looking at OpenLayer's svn:
http://svn.openlayers.org/trunk/openlayers/lib/OpenLayers/Geometry/
there is a geometry object model, and I think it'd make sense to just
dump in to something like that.
I'm also +1 on rolling in geometryType and spatialCoordinates in to one.
Chris
--
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/20070319/9be4b679/attachment-0005.vcf>
More information about the GeoJSON
mailing list