[GeoJSON] RFC-001 vote
noreply at geocartic.com
Wed May 23 07:59:11 PDT 2007
Sean Gillies wrote:
> Christopher Schmidt wrote:
>> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 09:02:00AM -0400, Allan Doyle wrote:
>>> Note that there is a counterproposal in http://lists.geojson.org/
>> After working with GeoJSON long enough, I've realized that Tim is
>> absolutely right on the money with this:
>> "Again, I've heard the argument that you can cram much of your parser
>> into one line if you keep the coordinates array identical for 5 of the
>> geometries. Personally, I think this argument is a bit weak - and makes
>> the data structure overly funky."
>> I'm entirely in favor of:
>> * Getting rid of 'holes' (polygons are a list of rings, first one is
>> * Points being a tuple ([x,y])
>> * Lines being a list of tuples [[x,y], [x2,y2]]
>> * Polygons being a list of linear rings:
>> [[[x,y], [x2,y2], [x3,y3], [x,y]],[[x4,y4], [x5,y5], [x6,y6], [x4,y4]]]
>> I know I made the counter argument to begin with. It was stupid of me. I
>> learned better as I wrote more code.
>> So, I vote for doing whatever needs to be done to make Tim's suggestion 
>> the way things are done. If someone tells me the right way to proceed,
>> I'll turn what he wrote into a proposal on the wiki.
>>  http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/2007-April/000126.html
> Nothing wrong with a change of heart, particularly if it's a change
> based on implementation experience. I'd be satisfied with the coordinate
> representations above.
Cool. I've got more in my head on this than expressed in that mail. My
plan is to get it written up this morning. I'll write back once
something is posted.
> geojson mailing list
> geojson at lists.geojson.org
More information about the geojson