[GeoJSON] RFC-001 vote

[Paul Ramsey]

Looks good to me. Two things:

- Higher dimensionality... for 3 and 4-d features, just add another  
entry to the coordinates? I have no problem with that. Not sure if  
you want to have explicit typology to reflect higher dimensionality  
(PointZ, PointM, PointZM).
- would it be terrible to have box be [[0.0, 0.0],[1.0,1.0]]? I like  
the feel of a box defined by min and max points, personally.

P

On 23-May-07, at 5:04 PM, Tim Schaub wrote:

> Hey-
>
> Allan Doyle wrote:
>> VOTE HERE: http://www.yourfreepoll.com/wzdbtaousp.html
>
> Thanks for keeping this going.  I like GeoJSON.  However, I voted
> against RFC-001.  As was suggested, I'm posting my arguments to the  
> list.
>
> The changes I'd like to see are reflected here:
> http://wiki.geojson.org/RFC-2
>
> This proposal describes the structure for four classes of GeoJSON
> objects: Geometry, GeometryCollection, Feature, and FeatureCollection.
>
> The Geometry types described are Point, LineString, Polygon,  
> MultiPoint,
> MultiLineString, MultiPolygon, and Box.
>
> In my mind, this proposal keeps GeoJSON simpler.  There are a total  
> of 4
> required names in the GeoJSON vocabulary: type, coordinates, members,
> and properties.  With these four names, the above objects can be
> described concisely - balancing human and machine readability.  (I  
> like
> "data" or "coords" better than "coordinates" but that's just because
> they have fewer letters.)
>
> I've left the crs definition vague, since I care less about how  
> that is
> handled.
>
> The changes between RFC-001 and RFC-2 are summarized as: define what
> types of objects may be serializes as GeoJSON, get rid of the point as
> array of a single array business, get rid of the box as an array of  
> two
> points business, get rid of the holes name, make all multi-part
> geometries more similar, and make all GeoJSON objects have a type.
>
> I've updated the OpenLayers GeoJSON parser to read and write according
> to RFC-2.
>
> You can paste the examples from the wiki into the parser to see what
> they look like rendered.
>
> Examples: http://wiki.geojson.org/RFC-2#Examples
> Parser:
> http://dev.openlayers.org/sandbox/tschaub/geojson/examples/ 
> geojson.html
>
> Interested to hear any feedback.
>
> Tim
>
> A few notes:
> - I'm sure there are typos.
> - Though the OL example spits out only Feature type GeoJSON, it can
> read/write all types.
> - A Box gets read in as a polygon in OL - so you don't get the same
> GeoJSON on the way out.
> - If you get the "Bad GeoJSON" response, hit F12 or Ctrl-Shift-L to  
> see
> a (potentially) more useful error message.
> _______________________________________________
> geojson mailing list
> geojson at lists.geojson.org
> http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org