On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Webb Sprague <[email protected]> wrote: >>> All I want from any data provider is an ftp source with shapefiles in >>> zip bundles, and for them to get the prj files is right. This >>> doesn't really take much staff, though, yes, it takes some. >> >> Anyone publishing their data openly needs to consider the effects of >> choosing a single (semi-)proprietary format. I'm not convinced that our >> residents are best served by publishing for the benfit a small set of GIS >> power users, rather than targetting an open format that is accessibly by >> users of all skill levels (such as KML). I'm pretty sure that most people >> wouldn't know what to do with a .shp file. Or a FTP site for that matter :)
think shapefiles have become a de facto standard by now with lots and lots of open source tools to access them, as has FTP (especially since you can point any browser at an ftp site and it will do the right thing automagically). I also think zipped shapefiles on an ftp site are well within the technical expertise of any GIS tech (at least anyone I would hire!), and a very reasonable technical compromise. It is FAR more important to make the data available TODAY, than to wait for the perfect format (especially because there is none). I could write a point and click shape2kml utility in an afternoon, anyway, for those who want it. W > >> >> Jason >> > _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
