[Geopackage] New Blog Post

Brad Hards bradh at frogmouth.net
Sat Dec 17 17:09:02 EST 2016


I'm with Pepijn on this one.

The document can't be silent on this.

Pick one:
 - Pick a specific solution. I'd prefer that, but it looks like this was hard 
for the SWG. It is still the best approach, so its worth a re-visit
 - Provide a way to signal it in metadata. At least cover off geotiff 
pixel-as-area and pixel-as-point concepts, with a nod to DTED and LAS. I'd 
avoid GML coverage if possible, but OGC plays politics, so up to you.
 - Be explicit about the problem - say it has to be communicated in some other 
document and admit there is no interoperable interpretation in the extension 


More information about the Geopackage mailing list