[Geojson] Conclusion on Circles/Ellipses

[Sean Gillies]

Andy,

Thanks for taking the time to write up a proposal and explain your use
cases. Unless there's an objection from one of the spec authors, let's
mark it as "not accepted." I've begun to document in the wiki *why*
there is no consensus to accept so that we have a baseline for future
discussions.

Okay?


On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:34 PM, andy e <virtualandy at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>> >
>> > ********************************************************************************************************************
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>



-- 
Sean Gillies