[gdal-dev] Time for a new GeoJSON driver?

Mateusz Loskot mateusz at loskot.net
Thu Jul 28 03:36:32 PDT 2016

On 28 July 2016 at 12:00, Robert Coup <robert.coup at koordinates.com> wrote:
> On 27 July 2016 at 22:19, Sean Gillies <sean at mapbox.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Even Rouault <even.rouault at spatialys.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Automatic reprojection by default would indeed be a change. Difficult to
>>> say how
>>> breaking it is for existing workflows. Would be happy to hear about
>>> others'
>>> opinions. Another option would be to make RFCxxxx conformance an explicit
>>> user
>>> choice.
>> I'm concerned that requiring users to set an environment variable for
>> conformance will extend the period of transition from 2008 to RFC GeoJSON. I
>> honestly don't know that introducing a new format name ("geo+json" instead
>> of "GeoJSON") would be better, but I think it could be better: `ogr2ogr -f
>> geo+json` appears more portable (to, i.e., Windows) than
>> `RFCxxxx_GEOJSON=TRUE ogr2ogr -f GeoJSON`.
> Personally I'd prefer RFC-by-default and no automatic reprojection -- with
> an error if the CRS isn't CRS84. Be able to opt into old style with config

That would change the current behaviour and might be unacceptable,
by PSC or users, then that is a good reason to create a new driver.
Problem might be with the names, having two drivers means two names,
and GeoJSON would still point to old driver which became de facto
non-GeoJSON driver. Confusing.

> The above doesn't do good things for GDAL backwards compatibility though :)


Best regards,
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

More information about the gdal-dev mailing list