[OSM-dev] "The Future of Areas" - open discussion?
frederik at remote.org
Mon May 9 00:32:28 BST 2011
Stefan Keller wrote:
> Right. In fact - it's currently a programmers nightmare: It took us in
> OSM-in-a-box several months of development.
> I already argued earlier for an own geometry type. I proposed (and
> still do) to choose the "Simple Features" geometry schema from OGC.
This roughly translates to
and would have the disadvantages listed on that page (e.g. no re-using
of edges; difficulties in handling very large polygons).
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the dev