[GeoJSON] Removing CRS from GeoJSON

[Sean Gillies]

Links to CRS definitions in GML are already made possible by
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-butler-geojson-03#section-3.2. That the
spec doesn't define a vocabulary for the formats of CRS documents is a bug.
I am not in favor of expanding the CRS part of the GeoJSON spec at all, but
am in favor of addressing the existing bug by adding "GML" to the current
list of "proj4", "ogcwkt", and "esriwkt".

Would you be willing to add a new issue to
https://github.com/geojson/draft-geojson/issues, Simon?


On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 2:48 AM, <Simon.Cox at csiro.au> wrote:

>  Looking back in the archives, in the thread with this subject line, I
> see comments like
>
>
>
> >>  *I don't know of a good web service ... that provides axis order information for arbitrary CRS URN,*
>
>
>
> FWIW - EPSG do provide a service to look up *their* CRS here:
> http://www.epsg-registry.org/
>
> The web API is
> http://www.epsg-registry.org/indicio/query?request=GetRepositoryItem&id=urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::27700
> for example. You get GML back, from which the axis order (and everything
> else) can be deduced, with a little work.
>
>
>
> Of course the underlying problem with URNs is that you need to know this
> kind of thing in order to resolve them, and every URN scheme has a
> different resolver (if at all!). Not very helpful to most people. That’s
> why in 2010 OGC changed its approach and prefers http URIs (i.e. URLs) for
> all new definitions, leveraging DNS instead. And all the old URNs are
> mapped directly to URLs with this pattern:
>
>
>
> urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::27700 à http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/27700
>
>
>
> You still get GML back, but the service is pretty reliable. Somehow the
> word has not got out – perhaps because URNs are still mentioned in some of
> the specs which have not been updated since the policy change. But if you
> look across the web landscape, URNs are clearly an obsolete technology.
>
>
>
> The GeoJSON spec (section 3) recommends the OGC URN syntax, as preferable
> to the old EPSG:27700 syntax. Maybe a minor update to recommend the OGC URL
> syntax instead (or as well), and then at least you can have something that
> usually resolves directly?
>
>
>
> Or maybe the IETF process is the opportunity to make such a change? Would
> it be helpful if I were to submit a formal comment through the IETF lists
> to do this?
>
>
>
>
>
> *Simon J D Cox *
>
> Research Scientist
>
> *Land and Water*
>
> CSIRO
>
>
>
> *E* simon.cox at csiro.au *T* +61 3 9252 6342 *M* +61 403 302 672
>
> 37 Graham Road, Highett, Vic
>
> PO Box 56, Highett, Vic 3190
>
> www.csiro.au | www.csiro.au/SimonCox
>
>
>
> *PLEASE NOTE*
>
> The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged.
> Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this
> email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by
> return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not
> represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this
> communication has been maintained or that the communication is free of
> errors, virus, interception or interference.
>
>
>
> *Please consider the environment before printing this email.*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GeoJSON mailing list
> GeoJSON at lists.geojson.org
> http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org
>
>


-- 
Sean Gillies
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/attachments/20140626/15128314/attachment.htm>