<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<br>
<div>
<div>On Apr 26, 2013, at 1:42 PM, Michael Geary <<a href="mailto:mg@mg.to">mg@mg.to</a>></div>
<div> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Howard Butler <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:hobu.inc@gmail.com" target="_blank">hobu.inc@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
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.</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
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:</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_extra"> "crs": {</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"> "type": "name",</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"> "properties": {</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"> "name": "urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::3857"</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"> }</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"> }</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style="">with coordinates like these:</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style=""><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style=""> "bbox": [ 737758, 4231185, 2061653, 5957068 ]<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style="">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:</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style=""><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style="">
<div class="gmail_extra"> "crs": "urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::3857"</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style="">instead of all the extra structure it has now.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style=""><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style="">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.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>Allan</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>