[Geopackage] New Blog Post
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 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