In version 1.0, there is no requirement that the numerical values serialised as JSON numbers have any specific precision. For example, both of these GeoPoses for the current sun reference from my current time and position are valid but only the first may be useful:
{
"position": {
"lat": 47.668138,
"lon": -122.169377,
"h": 0
},
"angles": {
"yaw": 154.45690920341087,
"pitch": 25.319445556514292,
"roll": 0
}
}
This relates to both the decision to ignore precision and accuracy in version 1.0 and a failure to include a requirement along the lines of
"Numerical values in a GeoPose shall be serialised with a precision matching the underlying sensed or calculated source of the numbers."
The use of "matching" is intentionally vague because I think a thorough discussion of the method to determine the appropriate precision is too big to be a simple correction. This could be added to version 1.0 as a correction, rather than an update. That would patch up this omission until we have a more complete uncertainty treatment.
In version 1.0, there is no requirement that the numerical values serialised as JSON numbers have any specific precision. For example, both of these GeoPoses for the current sun reference from my current time and position are valid but only the first may be useful: { "position": { "lat": 47.668138, "lon": -122.169377, "h": 0 }, "angles": { "yaw": 154.45690920341087, "pitch": 25.319445556514292, "roll": 0 } }
or
{ "position": { "lat": 48, "lon": -122, "h": 0 }, "angles": { "yaw": 154, "pitch": 25, "roll": 0 } }
This relates to both the decision to ignore precision and accuracy in version 1.0 and a failure to include a requirement along the lines of
"Numerical values in a GeoPose shall be serialised with a precision matching the underlying sensed or calculated source of the numbers."
The use of "matching" is intentionally vague because I think a thorough discussion of the method to determine the appropriate precision is too big to be a simple correction. This could be added to version 1.0 as a correction, rather than an update. That would patch up this omission until we have a more complete uncertainty treatment.