On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > > On 05/24/11 11:24, Igor Brejc wrote: > >> This could be a more serious issue. I guess in the history of GIS there >> has never been such a large geo database as OSM is now becoming. Maybe >> we (as the OSM community) should take a proactive stance and propose a >> new version of shapefile format that could cope with 64 bits. Yes, I >> know this is daydreaming, but shapefile format is getting old anyway. >> Something using protocol buffers could be a new way to go - easier to >> write readers and writers and taking less space, too. >> > > I think in the free/open world, "spatiallite" is trying to be shapefile > 2.0, > Yes, but is it really? It's a storage format, you need a 3rd party driver to read it and it's optimized for querying, not for storing high volume of data in an efficient manner. And it's a database without a standard schema. I see spatialite as a good way for thick clients to store geo data without the need for an extra DB installation, but not as a good way to exchange data files (as opposed to osm.pbf, for example). Or am I missing something here? I'm interested to know because I plan to add spatialite support in Maperitive. Igor
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
