Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Gpx metadata type #123

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Gpx metadata type #123

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

Raruto
Copy link

@Raruto Raruto commented Oct 31, 2023

Hi Tom,

here's a draft based on: #111 (comment), that is, add a dedicated "empty" feature identified by the "_gpxType": "metadata" property:

{
  "type": "FeatureCollection",
  "features": [
    {
      "type": "Feature",
      "geometry": {
        "type": "Polygon",
        "coordinates": [ ]     // eventually populated by https://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/1/#type_boundsType
      },
      "properties": {
        "_gpxType": "metadata" // everything else related to https://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/1/#type_metadataType
        "name": "...",
        "desc": "...",
        "author": {
            "name": "...",
            "email": "",
            "link": {
               "href": "...",
               "text": "...",
               "type": "...",
            }
        },
        "copyright": {
          "author": "...",
          "year": "...",
          "license": "..."
        },
        "time": "...",
        "keywords": "...",
        "extensions": ??
    },
    {
      // Other features
    }
  ]
}

Let me know, so I'll eventually update the tests accordingly.

👋 Raruto

@tmcw
Copy link
Collaborator

tmcw commented Oct 31, 2023

Thanks! I'd really much rather expose a method like getGpxData rather than having a feature with magical meaning, would that be possible?

@Raruto
Copy link
Author

Raruto commented Nov 2, 2023

expose a method like getGpxData rather than having a feature with magical meaning

I was trying to keep it simple (and quickly testable)

From my point of view rte features are quite similar:

"properties": {
"_gpxType": "rte",
"name": "route name",
"time": "2007-11-25T17:58:00Z",
},

Also regarding data portability I'd rather prefer find a fairly common way of handling this.

It's already quite easy to build an out-of-spec geojson (or at least without relying on other external libraries).

If implemented here (as a static information) you'd at least be pretty sure that it's a quite valid thing

Anyway, i think the final decision is up to you..

👋 Raruto

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants