The way I see it the geometry type that deviates from GeoJSON model is not multipolygon, it is multipoint.

I see what you mean, I think.

Just to clarify my own understanding of the markup. A MultiPoint and LineString are similar in GeoJSON:

{
         "type": "MultiPoint",
         "coordinates": [
             [100.0, 0.0],
             [101.0, 1.0]
         ]
}

vs.

{
         "type": "LineString",
         "coordinates": [
             [100.0, 0.0],
             [101.0, 1.0]
         ]
}

whereas they are currently marked up differently in MapML:

<linestring>
    <coordinates>-75.705138 45.39178 -75.705238 45.39278 -75.705338 45.39378</coordinates>
</linestring>

vs.

<multipoint>
  <coordinates>-75.705138 45.39178</coordinates>
  <coordinates>-75.705238 45.39278</coordinates>
  <coordinates>-75.705338 45.39378</coordinates>
</multipoint>

in the proposal they would be made similar and hence more like GeoJSON:

<linestring>
    <coordinates>-75.705138 45.39178 -75.705238 45.39278 -75.705338 45.39378</coordinates>
</linestring>

vs.

<multipoint>
  <coordinates>-75.705138 45.39178 -75.705238 45.39278 -75.705338 45.39378</coordinates>
</multipoint>

Would appreciate some +1's or -1's with comments on this issue. I am ready to make the changes. I will add a checklist on what has to change if we go ahead.

Uh oh!

Eliminate redundant <coordinates> tags from <multipoint> child points #44

Description

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions