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

Default value of the crs field is too vague #152

Closed
m-mohr opened this issue Dec 5, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #154
Closed

Default value of the crs field is too vague #152

m-mohr opened this issue Dec 5, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #154

Comments

@m-mohr
Copy link
Collaborator

m-mohr commented Dec 5, 2022

The CRS field states (bold text by me):

If the crs field is not included then the data in this column must be stored in longitude, latitude based on the WGS84 datum, and CRS-aware implementations should assume a default value of OGC:CRS84

This is weird. Is it the default value or not? Stating that this might be the default value is not very helpful.

So I propose to rephrase to something like:

The default CRS is OGC:CRS84, which means the data in this column must be stored in longitude, latitude based on the WGS84 datum.

@m-mohr m-mohr changed the title crs fields it too vague crs fields is too vague Dec 5, 2022
@m-mohr m-mohr changed the title crs fields is too vague Default value of the crs fields is too vague Dec 5, 2022
@m-mohr m-mohr changed the title Default value of the crs fields is too vague Default value of the crs field is too vague Dec 5, 2022
tschaub added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 7, 2022
* The default value of the crs field is required #152

* Update chapter below, too

* Apply suggestions from code review

* Update format-specs/geoparquet.md

* Update format-specs/geoparquet.md

Co-authored-by: Tim Schaub <tschaub@users.noreply.github.com>

Co-authored-by: Tim Schaub <tschaub@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants