+1 For me the RFC feels good. Existing data formats like GeoTIFF and GeoJSON can deliver the 4D spatiotemporal coordinates correctly by using the epoch attached as metadata when the whole dataset is using the same epoch. None of the formats dealt in the RFC should get broken. If some software does not know what to do with the metadata it will discard the metadata and the situation is the same than now. Those who use dynamic coordinate systems probably know that without epoch the data are undefined and then they will try to find the epoch by some other means.
Personally I like that data and metadata are kept in the same file. But if it feels bad, could it be an option to use a sidecar file ".aux.xml" for the single file / single layer formats like GeoJSON? Obviously there is lot to do with dynamic reference systems https://geophysica.fi/pdf/geophysica_2019_54_kierulf.pdf but this RFC could be a good start. -Jukka Rahkonen- Even Rouault-2 wrote > Hi, > > Motion: > > adopt RFC 81: support for coordinate epochs in geospatial formats ( > https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/3827 ) > > Starting with my +1 > > Even > > -- > http://www.spatialys.com > My software is free, but my time generally not. > > _______________________________________________ > gdal-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev -- Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/GDAL-Dev-f3742093.html _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
