[Geojson] Conclusion on Circles/Ellipses

andy e virtualandy at gmail.com
Wed Nov 9 21:34:54 PST 2011


Oh no! So what you're saying is, you're gonna let Windows Phone support
Ellipse Geom's (
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.media.ellipsegeometry(v=vs.95).aspx)
but not GeoJSON? ;)

Seriously, thanks for letting us take part in trying to change the spec.
Not having ellipses aren't the end of the world, obviously.

Although, if this is true:
>
>The spec allows any number of additional members. So right now there's
nothing to preclude someone from doing
>
> { "type": "Point", "coordinates": [100.0, 0.0], "Radius" : 1.0, "Units" :
"meters" }

That might work better than what we are doing now, where we store
axis/rotation info in the properties array.

Re: radius/accuracy, I can try to explain what we're doing in more detail
to help with making sure that makes sense in any tweak to the spec, but
circles aren't really that important (as mentioned, I just threw them). And
we are dealing with geometries, not any sort of 'accuracy' value, really,
so that's not all that useful from our end.

Thanks,

Andy

p.s. Sorry Tim, I keep forgetting to reply to the list. I blame Gmail...

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Tim Schaub <tschaub at opengeo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Martin Daly <Martin.Daly at cadcorp.com>
> wrote:
> >> Radius is better spelled accuracy in my opinion.  Then it could apply
> >> to all coordinates.
> >
> > I know I'm being arsey here, but...
> >
> > Is "radius" in XY space? What about Z? Does "accuracy" apply to X, Y, Z,
> M, all, some? Does "accuracy" have the same units for all ordinates? What
> if "accuracy" is different in value or units for different ordinates, or
> different at each vertex of a LineString, etc?
> >
> > I fear that, unlike the geometry model - which is fairly robustly
> defined, apart from the higher dimensions, arguably - this is in danger of
> being under-specified and open to interpretation.
>
> Agreed completely (I wasn't promoting radius, just spelling it
> differently).
>
> >
> > So I'm edging towards -1.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ********************************************************************************************************************
> > Cadcorp is a trading name of Computer Aided Development Corporation
> Limited; registered in England;
> > number: 1955756. Registered office : Sterling Court, Norton Road,
> Stevenage, Herts SG1 2JY
> >
> > This email is confidential and may be privileged and should not be used,
> read
> > or copied by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you
> have
> > received this email in error please inform the sender and delete it from
> > your mailbox or any other storage mechanism. Unless specifically stated,
> > nothing in this email constitutes an offer by Cadcorp and Cadcorp does
> not
> > warrant that any information contained in this email is accurate.
> > Cadcorp cannot accept liability for any statements made which are
> clearly the
> > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of Cadcorp or one of its
> agents.
> > Please rely on your own virus check. No responsibility is taken by
> Cadcorp
> > for any damage arising out of any bug or virus infection.
> >
> ********************************************************************************************************************
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Tim Schaub
> OpenGeo http://opengeo.org/
> Expert service straight from the developers.
> _______________________________________________
> Geojson mailing list
> Geojson at lists.geojson.org
> http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/attachments/20111109/db7f95cd/attachment.htm>


More information about the Geojson mailing list