View source

== [[User:Mpd|Mpd]] Comments and Questions ==
# I'd prefer "crs" to "srs", the latter being out step with, for example, EPSG and OGC terminology. Ditto for "LineString" and "Line", and perhaps (although less so) "Envelope" and "Box"
# Why reference PROJ.4's EPSG tables and not the EPSG tables themselves?  Do I sense a coordinate order holy war type thing going on?
# What about <nowiki>Multi[Point|LineString|Polygon]</nowiki> and GeometryCollection?
# What about Polygons with multiple rings?  [http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/2007-March/000030.html An earlier proposal] handled this.
# How does a client determine whether the, for example, six ordinates in a Line/LineString are two x,y,z-s or three x,y-s?
# [http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/2007-March/000016.html You suggested] an "Authors" section, for CC reasons.  Care to add one?
[[User:Mpd|Mpd]]

== [[User:AllanDoyle|AllanDoyle]] Response ==
# Shoot. I thought SRS was in vogue and CRS is out. Great. Let's go with crs. I have no preference with linestring, etc.
# PROJ vs EPSG. PROJ is what coders will see. They may never look at EPSG. Few people will use anything other than PROJ.
# Multi Schmulti, I always say. :)
# Rings Schmings... toss 'em in.
# This is JSON, not GML, so we should (a) use commas and (b) use proper arrays and arrays of arrays.
# Drat. OK. Authors coming right up.

== [[User:Mpd|Mpd]] Response to response ==
# Good.
# I don't understand: do you mean use PROJ.4 definition strings?  How about [http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=16339 OGC URN-s (with click-through licence)]?  Examples are: "urn:ogc:def:crs:OGC:1.3:CRS84" for the CRS formerly known as "EPSG:4326 with lat/lon axes order"; and "urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG:6.3:26986" for "EPSG:26986".
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EU_location_UK.png MultiPolygons] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Amazon_river_basin.png MultiLines] really do exist.
# Anyone for [http://www.tradgames.org.uk/games/Quoits.htm Quoits]?
# OK by me
# Thanks.
[[User:Mpd|Mpd]]

== [[User:AllanDoyle|AllanDoyle]] Response ==
# Clearly this system of commenting on the comments is going to break down soon.
# I mean literally taken from the file called 'epsg' which on my system installs into /Library/Frameworks/PROJ.framework/Versions/Current/Resources/proj/epsg. It looks sort of like this:
 # Unknown datum based upon the Airy 1830 ellipsoid
 <4001> +proj=longlat +ellps=airy +no_defs  <>
 # Unknown datum based upon the Airy Modified 1849 ellipsoid
 <4002> +proj=longlat +a=6377340.189 +b=6356034.447938534 +no_defs  <>
 # Unknown datum based upon the Australian National Spheroid
 <4003> +proj=longlat +ellps=aust_SA +no_defs  <>
From that, the codes I mean are the ones in < >. There might be a better way to phrase this rule... But it boils down to not requiring people to find, read, and understand the EPSG tables themselves.
# I believe you, let's add them. In fact, why not just say we'll allow geometries that have OGC WKT definitions. There must be a list somewhere.
# If there's an OGC WKT, Quoits are in.
#. Great.
# You're welcome. (See, the numbering broke, and I don't have the wiki-fu to fix it).