[OSGeo-Discuss] Orientation standard

[Scott Simmons]

Hello Henrique,

OGC members have adopted a policy of free and open standards, so a premium model does not fit our current mission.

I am going to move this conversation over to an OGC channel so that we can further discuss any potential for submission of your idea to our process.

Thanks,
Scott

> On Oct 20, 2015, at 7:41 AM, Munich Orientation Convention <volksnav at volksnav.de> wrote:
> 
>  
> Hello Scott,
>  
> I like your questions. 
>  
> The most important is that the experts agree that r100 is a good and consumer friendly Convention, at least for fast orientation purposes and as an alternative to open squared systems or simply “here”. The specifications for this piece of a polar system could be:
>  
> 1 – Name:
> r100
>  
> 2 - identification letter: 
> “r” as radius, 
> lower case.
>  
> 3 - value: 
> 100, 
> which represents 100 “blocks of houses”, 100 x 100 meters or 100 x 100 yards. 
>  
> 4 - color: 
> red.
>  
> 5 - conversion from lat/lon
> acc. known geodetic algorithms. 
>  
> 6 - definition of urban pole: 
> according list …, 
> actually only on www.volksnav.de/mapplet <http://www.volksnav.de/mapplet>. 
>  
> The definition of these relevant urban poles is a result of many years of hard work and I claim intellectual property. Here the question could arise: “do you prefer open or  optimal polar systems?”. 
> Does anybody know if the transition point NS/EW for post codes in London (a strange mix polar/squared system ) is a relevant point? Please confirm: it’s not.  
>  
> ----
>  
> The proposed specification didn’t come from members but could come active from OGC side. Where there is a will, there is a way: is there the possibility to create a premium standard for premium members? This would surely increase the number of members.
>  
> Henrique
>  
> P. S.:  Openwashing: http://opensource.com/business/14/12/openwashing-more-prevalent <http://opensource.com/business/14/12/openwashing-more-prevalent>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20151021/c09b90b2/attachment-0002.html>