[GeoJSON] Future plans for GeoJSON

[Volker Mische]

On 04/26/2013 06:27 PM, Howard Butler wrote:
> 
> On Apr 26, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Sean Gillies <sean.gillies at gmail.com> wrote:
>> One thing I'd like to consider, either before or during the process, would be to strip out the CRS parts of the specification that get very little use. Specifically, the linked and named CRS types. I've only seen non-long/lat GeoJSON in the wild a couple times (City of Chicago's open data is one) and the producers aren't following the specification with regards to CRS. This suggests to me that those parts of the spec are either broken or superfluous.
> 
> 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.
> 
> A question that should be asked is what the impact of this change would be on folks, however. Now that we have javascript reprojection engines, the necessity of the crs member is probably not so great in the GeoJSON specification (lack of this is what precipitated my desire for the crs member in the first place -- you had to go server side to do any reproduction operations).
> 
> It might make more sense to break the crs stuff into its *own* JSONy specification, either by leveraging OGC's URN stuff more explicitly, or doing something entirely different (proj.4-based, though somewhat deficient, seems to have a lot of more generic traction). Then GeoJSON could simply reference that effort.

I think having a separate CRS JSONy specification would be great. This
would open the door to have the OGC using GeoJSON in the future.

Cheers,
  Volker