GeoJSON unidentified geometry objects about mdjson-schemas HOT 3 CLOSED

I don't know that support for simple geometry is necessary, The only
advantage is a streamlined input. It is true that many users will take the
path of least resistance and use simple geometry when they actually have
descriptive information that would make the record more robust. In FGDC
there are many fields that are optional and many don't use as a result,
which is fine. But the option to use them is presented in the editor. You
only get what you put in, so it is not creating unnecessary bloat in the
output.

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:29 AM, stansmith907 [email protected]:

On our afternoon call yesterday Josh and I discovered the JSON schema and
mdTranslator are out of sync regarding the 'geometry' and
'geometryCollection' options of GeoJSON.

GeoJSON supports 'geometry', 'geometryCollection', 'feature', and
'featureCollection'. The difference between geometry and feature objects is
that features allow support of supplemental information such as id, name,
description, and other things we decided to collect. Geometry blocks carry
on the un-described geometry.

ISO does support un-described geometries. The question is should we?
Pros:

• Descriptive fields are not required by ISO
• Descriptive fields didn't really exist in FGDC
• Third party generated GeoJSON could be dropped into the ADIwg JSON
• We would support the full GeoJSON standard Cons:
• Adds two more complex options for users (and or online editing
  tools) that capture the same geometry information as feature.
• Users may gravitate to the word 'geometry' more than 'feature'
  causing loss of metadata that would otherwise be obtainable.
  • User are not forced to provide supplemental information for
    features, it could be omitted if unknown.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/10
.

from mdjson-schemas.

Like Stan mentioned, probably the major issue here is not supporting the full GeoJSON spec.

This will not have an impact on the ADIwg editor either way. You can have a GeoJSON feature without any properties.

from mdjson-schemas.

So what is the impact of not fully supporting the GeoJSON spec?

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Josh Bradley [email protected]:

Like Stan mentioned, probably the major issue here is not supporting the
full GeoJSON spec.

This will not have an impact on the ADIwg editor either way. You can have
a GeoJSON feature without any properties.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/10#issuecomment-43806525
.

from mdjson-schemas.