[GeoJSON] Future plans for GeoJSON

[Allan Doyle]

On Apr 26, 2013, at 1:42 PM, Michael Geary <mg at mg.to<mailto:mg at mg.to>>
 wrote:

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Howard Butler <hobu.inc at gmail.com<mailto:hobu.inc at gmail.com>> wrote:
As one of the primary forces behind the CRS stuff, I support the removal of CRS from the GeoJSON specification. Adhoc specification of the coordinate system would then be left to the implementor, and a thousand turdblossoms can bloom.

I'm one of those rare people who use the GeoJSON CRS. I built a bunch of election results maps for Google over the last few years, and to speed up the JavaScript code a bit I used Spherical Mercator coordinates since those convert directly to pixels with a single multiplication. So I use this CRS in my GeoJSON files:

    "crs": {
        "type": "name",
        "properties": {
            "name": "urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::3857"
        }
    }

with coordinates like these:

    "bbox": [ 737758, 4231185, 2061653, 5957068 ]

I suppose it wouldn't make any real difference whether the crs object is in the standard or not, since I could just continue to use it in any case. Maybe if it weren't in the standard I would feel free to simplify it to:

    "crs": "urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::3857"

instead of all the extra structure it has now.

So I guess I don't have an opinion one way or the other on removing the CRS from the standard, just wanted to mention that I'm using it.

I'm ok with taking it out, too. I'd rather see a separate CRSJSON that can fit within the structure of GeoJSON. Maybe this could point the way towards a general JSON interleaving trend. Better to keep individual specs concise.

Allan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/attachments/20130426/36f2b167/attachment.htm>