Timeline for Programmatic conversion between GML and GeoJSON
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://gis.stackexchange.com/ with https://gis.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 13, 2013 at 21:11 | answer | added | Jeff-Meadows | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 23, 2013 at 23:26 | comment | added | Michael come lately |
@Jeff-Meadows Thanks for the tip. I've already built the conversion methods. At some point, I may use the strategy you mentioned, but at present I'm still tinkering with SQL's Reduce() to narrow the number of points sent to the client (cached, of course).
|
|
| Jul 23, 2013 at 21:47 | comment | added | Jeff-Meadows | Projection is only a problem if you're trying to change it. GeoJSON can specify a projection, but it defaults to WGS84. To be honest though, I'd store both formats unless you've got a very good reason not to - why write the extra code, and exercise the server on every request? Don't think of it as redundant, think of it as pre-caching =) | |
| Jul 22, 2013 at 13:15 | comment | added | Michael come lately | @Jeff-Meadows I had not considered storing them both; if I have to, perhaps I will. On the other hand, I will happily write C# and parse WKT into geoJSON. Does projection become a problem, too, or am I safe there? | |
| Jul 19, 2013 at 18:45 | comment | added | Jeff-Meadows | I think the best answer for you depends on your situation. If you don't expect data in your database to change often (or ever), and since you've only got roughly 500 shapes, the easiest thing to do will be to store the data in both formats. Run your spatial queries against the spatial types the DB understands, and then serve the pre-converted geoJSON representation. Otherwise, you'd need some converters. If you're comfortable writing C#, it's possible to roll your own, and I can help you do that. | |
| Jul 16, 2013 at 22:13 | history | edited | Michael come lately | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 characters in body
|
| Jul 16, 2013 at 22:10 | comment | added | Michael come lately | @DPierce In this particular case, yes, kind of opposed. We try to limit the 3rd Party footprint as much as is reasonable. Setting up another server with a different runtime to host 500 shapes is not going to fly with the boss. Edit: I realize I didn't make it clear before that there's an existing system I'm bolting onto. I'll fix the original question. | |
| Jul 16, 2013 at 18:31 | comment | added | DPierce | Are you against installing additional software? Geoserver can handle MSSQL spatial types in their native format and serve that out however you need. | |
| Jul 16, 2013 at 15:45 | review | First posts | |||
| Jul 16, 2013 at 15:58 | |||||
| Jul 16, 2013 at 15:28 | history | asked | Michael come lately | CC BY-SA 3.0 |