[GeoJSON] Removing CRS from GeoJSON

Thu May 16 11:58:49 PDT 2013

I like the proposal Sean.  Curious exactly what you mean by deprecate
(remove "crs" with no text mentioning it, or say "crs" is deprecated and
describe what it used to be like?).

Regarding GeoServer, it is a good question.  I haven't discussed this with
others in that community, but I'd say GeoJSON would become more like KML -
GeoServer can serialize feature collections as both, but you can't request
data in arbitrary reference systems.

It's also my opinion that clients can use other formats if they need
functionality not covered by GeoJSON (we don't handle complex features
particularly well, for example).  A capable web client can consume GML from
GeoServer's WFS if it wants data in an arbitrary crs or needs complex
features.  In addition, I don't personally feel like GeoJSON + WFS is a
natural mix (WFS-T for example, doesn't work).

Tim

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Sean Gillies <sean.gillies at gmail.com>wrote:

> All,
>
> How about this for a plan: submit an I-D that deprecates the old crs
> object, omits the new proposed crsURN object, and doesn't otherwise change
> the geojson.org spec. After it is submitted, we reexamine the CRS
> situation in light of comments we'll (hopefully) get. My hypothesis is that
> this compatibility-breaking change doesn't actually break very much in
> practice.
>
> As a consequence there will be what looks to a lot of GIS folks like a gap
> in the spec. We'll need to be able to live with the multiple gap-filling
> measures they'll come up with. For example, Tim, what's GeoServer going to
> do to satisfy WFS requests for GeoJSON in EPSG:27700 (or
> urn:ogc:def:epsg::27700)?
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Tim Schaub <tschaub at opengeo.org> wrote:
>
>> Tim, I think the situation that we have at the moment is better than you
>> describe, but not by much. We have “allow any CRS and axis order will
>> always be lon/lat or easting/northing”. We did that to avoid the burden of
>> carrying around axis order knowledge. But it still has the burden on
>> needing to know what EPSG:27700, or whatever, means. Web clients still have
>> to get the WKT, Proj.4 string, etc, from that id (assuming that they can
>> work with the result). So we dodged one bullet, but not the other, arguably
>> more complex, one.
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>
>> Regarding the bullet dodging, web clients don't actually have to know
>> squat about EPSG:27700 if they use GeoJSON and WMS 1.1 - they just have to
>> match strings to know that they are the same.  WMS 1.1 described a
>> rendering service where coordinate order could be mapped to rendering
>> concepts like "top" and "left" (well known by web clients who deal with
>> images).  GeoJSON maintained the same - a known mapping of coordinate order
>> to rendering orientation.  So we very intentionally made GeoJSON work well
>> with existing rendering services.
>>
>>
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> Here’s a pull request of mine:****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> https://github.com/GeoJSONWG/draft-geojson/pull/3****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Martin****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> *From:* geojson-bounces at lists.geojson.org [mailto:
>>> geojson-bounces at lists.geojson.org] *On Behalf Of *Tim Schaub
>>> *Sent:* 15 May 2013 05:41
>>> *To:* geojson at lists.geojson.org
>>> *Subject:* [GeoJSON] Removing CRS from GeoJSON****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> So as to avoid hijacking Sean's thread, I'll start a new one here.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> I'm in favor of restricting the allowed coordinate reference systems for
>>> GeoJSON objects to 1: latitude, longitude coordinates relative to an
>>> ellispoidal CRS based on the WGS84 datum.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> I think the second best alternative would be to restrict to 2 CRS: CRS84
>>> or EPGS:3857.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> I don't like the "allow any CRS and let axis order follow the CRS"
>>> because I think it either reduces interoperability or imposes an
>>> unreasonable burden on web clients (I don't know of a good web service - or
>>> really want to depend on one - that provides axis order information for
>>> arbitrary CRS URN, and the table is too big to ask every client to carry
>>> around).****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> I apologize for having missed earlier "discussion" [1]. I haven't dug
>>> down to that epoch in my inbox yet.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> And I'm in favor of the proposed RFC to IETF [2].****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> https://github.com/GeoJSONWG/draft-geojson/pull/2****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/2013-April/000712.html
>>> ****
>>>
>>> [2]
>>> http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/2013-April/000713.html
>>> ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Tim****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> PS - Do the build artifacts (xml, txt, etc) need to be in the repo? If
>>> so, can someone update the README.md with detail on building them?****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> PPS - Mildly curious what it means to be "commented out" as an author. I
>>> do see a comment that suggests authors should be asked if they are willing
>>> to be authors. Happy to entertain that question.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tim Schaub
>>> OpenGeo http://opengeo.org/
>>> Expert service straight from the developers.****
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sean Gillies
>

-- 
Tim Schaub
OpenGeo http://opengeo.org/
Expert service straight from the developers.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/attachments/20130516/509415ff/attachment-0005.htm>