[Geopackage] Call for Public Review of NSG GeoPackage Implementation Profile Draft

Brad Hards bradh at frogmouth.net
Fri May 1 22:40:31 EDT 2015


On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 08:51:52 AM Brad Hards wrote:
> It won't be possible to support arbitrary user-defined geometry - that is
> fundamentally not interoperable. Suggest prohibiting it. Also recommend
> removing non-linear geometry types.
Following on from this, based on some work that I've been doing with a test 
implementation (for JMPS), there is a question on what we should do for data 
that has SRS ID of 0 or -1. Conceptually we want to translate the data we have 
to show on the map we have (which is WGS84). What does 0 or -1 mean in this 
case?

More concretely, what is the expected outcome of ST_Transform() if the input 
geometry has srs_id of 0 or -1? 

If we don't know (or can't explain why users should have data that doesn't 
represent any particular place on the earth), then it may not make sense for 
the NSG profile to allow it.

Brad


More information about the Geopackage mailing list