Closed alexrobin closed 5 months ago
As discussed during the telecon today, there is a chance that having an extra root property in GeoJSON could break some implementations.
Even if not breaking, some software would not work out of the box. For example, importing the features inside a DB would probably lead to loosing the featureType
value.
As agreed during 01/24 telecon we will keep the featureType
inside the GeoJSON properties
object for now until more implementation experience is collected.
We also agreed to keep the JSON-FG requirements class out of part 1 and address it at a later stage.
Currently the "featureType" property is included in the "properties" member of a GeoJSON Feature. JSON-FG chose to include it at the root. Should we align to it?