Hi Wail, I also just stumbled over http://sis.apache.org <http://sis.apache.org/> . Maybe we could also see if they have something that we could use/reuse?
Cheers, Till > On Aug 10, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Wail Alkowaileet <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Till, > > I'm not a "GIS-guy" but I used JTS to do simple geospatial operations > (mainly point-in-polygon). I know JTS is under LGPL and their specification > AFAIK is mapped to http://geojson.org/geojson-spec.html which under some > standard format: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DE-9IM#Standards > > > > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Mike Carey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I like the proposal that - for the "simple JSON" - everything has a single >> string format. >> >> >> On 8/8/15 12:13 AM, Chris Hillery wrote: >> >>> Ok, sounds like the consensus is that we want to keep circle. That's fine >>> with me. To bring the conversation full circle (narf!), now the question >>> goes back to how best to represent that type in JSON, given that the >>> obvious options don't support it... but, that conversation should continue >>> on the original thread. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Ceej >>> aka Chris Hillery >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Chen Li <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I second Ted's argument. The reason on >>>> http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?23,148162,152625#msg-152625 is very >>>> weak, since following that logic there will be no 100% lines or >>>> rectangles on the surface of the earth. But these shapes are very >>>> useful. >>>> >>>> I am sure there are use cases for circles, such as the Apple's new >>>> headquarters. A related question is: what's the overhead of >>>> implementing and maintaining this type? >>>> >>>> Chen >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> There you go. >>>>> >>>>> Another application. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Mike Carey <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> AND: What if NASA wants to use us to store its database of crop >>>>>> >>>>> circles? >>>> >>>>> :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8/7/15 11:47 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:23 AM, Chris Hillery <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've noticed that several geospatial serialization formats (at least >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "well-known text" and GeoJSON) omit "circle" from their list of basic >>>>>>>> geometric forms, even when they have numerous more complex types such >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> as >>>> >>>>> multi-curves. This led me to here: >>>>>>>> http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?23,148162,152625#msg-152625 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> which offers a reasonably compelling argument for why "circle" is not >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> a >>>> >>>>> reasonable shape to discuss in geospatial contexts (loosely, because >>>>>>>> there's no consistent way to map that to a spherical coordinate >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> system). >>>> >>>>> Actually, that argument is super-weak. It also implies that you >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> shouldn't >>>>>>> have lines (they aren't straight after projection) or squares (they >>>>>>> >>>>>> aren't >>>> >>>>> square after projection). But lines and squares both before and after >>>>>>> projection are very handy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Circles are useful in many contexts. Drawing the visible horizon for a >>>>>>> particular observer is a great example. The flight range of an >>>>>>> >>>>>> airplane >>>> >>>>> is >>>>>>> another case. Positional error bounds with Gaussian errors is >>>>>>> another. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. You can approximate it using splines or polygons. But you can >>>>>>> approximate anything that way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> > > > -- > > *Regards,* > Wail Alkowaileet
