>> I also saw that you also prepared a writing part for GeoJSON - thanks for
>> the work
> yes, write support will come next. all thanks to Jukka! he offered to sponsor
> the GeoJSON development!
uhhh... applause!
I hope its going via his employer, or so. I, unfortunately can only pay
to someo
On 06.07.2016 08:04, Giuseppe Aruta wrote:
> Hi Ede,
> Nice extension!
thanks!
>tested the new GeoJSON plugin with success. It is fast and very accurate on
>reading.
yeah.. i took extra care that feature creation happens during parsing already
so that no memory is wasted and no extra cycles a
Hi Ede,
Nice extension! tested the new GeoJSON plugin with success. It is fast and
very accurate on reading.
What makes me surprise is that it also recognizes SRID on loading and
records as layer SRIDStyle (EPSG 4326). Which part of the code is involved?
I also saw that you also prepared a writing
hey Jukka,
just found out what the issue with the data types is. you ogr2ogr samples were
improper, at least for (Long & Boolean) ;(. see
{ "type": "Feature", "properties": { "City": "South Dakota", "A_Date":
"2016\/06\/23 17:02:25.138+03", "B_Integer": 71520, "C_Double": 79522.019838,
"D_Long
Hi Ede,
I made a very short test which was successful. I can't do more tests before
July 11. Meanwhile I encourage everybody else to test with all kind of GeoJSON
files from various places. Especially different web services delivering data as
GeoJSON are interesting because we could later make
marvelous Ede!
GeoJSON is more than a hipster format nowadays ;)
stefan
On 7/1/16 15:04, edgar.sol...@web.de wrote:
> hey Jukka,
>
> please try r4945 or later.
>
> ..ede
>
> On 27.06.2016 11:47, Rahkonen Jukka (MML) wrote:
>> Yes, sure, having all as strings is a good start.
>>
>>
>> -Jukka-
hey Jukka,
please try r4945 or later.
..ede
On 27.06.2016 11:47, Rahkonen Jukka (MML) wrote:
> Yes, sure, having all as strings is a good start.
>
>
> -Jukka-
>
> edgar soldin wrote:
>
>> Jukka,
>
>> could you live with all attributes being read as Strings for now? ..ede
>
> On 27.06.2016
Yes, sure, having all as strings is a good start.
-Jukka-
edgar soldin wrote:
> Jukka,
> could you live with all attributes being read as Strings for now? ..ede
On 27.06.2016 08:35, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Json datatypes http://www.tutorialspoint.com/json/json_data_types.htm do n
Jukka,
could you live with all attributes being read as Strings for now? ..ede
On 27.06.2016 08:35, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Json datatypes http://www.tutorialspoint.com/json/json_data_types.htm do not
> map perfectly with OJ datatypes. Strings can be separated from numbers,
> though, b
Hi,
Json datatypes http://www.tutorialspoint.com/json/json_data_types.htm do
not map perfectly with OJ datatypes. Strings can be separated from
numbers, though, but there is another problem in missing schema. Each
feature can have different attributes.
I believe that GDAL is scanning the GeoJS
hey Jukka,
attributes do not seem to carry a type in GeoJSON.. any idea how this is
supposed to be parsed?
..ede
On 23.06.2016 16:20, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
> Hi Ede,
>
> Please find attached. I included some small samples in both JML and GeoJSON.
> For the conversion I used ogr2ogr:
>
> ogr2
11 matches
Mail list logo
