IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Geojson] Why (lon, lat) in GeoJSON vs (lat, long) in GeoURI RFC 5870 ?

Mark Harrison <mark.harrison@cantab.net> Mon, 29 March 2021 13:36 UTC

Return-Path: <scenicviews.org@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: geojson@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: geojson@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E70323A1288 for <geojson@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 06:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.418
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nfatkJ-YHsz9 for <geojson@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 06:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-f169.google.com (mail-pg1-f169.google.com [209.85.215.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D33503A1285 for <geojson@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 06:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-f169.google.com with SMTP id m7so9416456pgj.8 for <geojson@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 06:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=QvkX/4JKjtuI8Z6b/J+6Gk7k2i9wXfBsaf4sgXR8UCY=; b=FHibjXLMrmcaw3x2eCw89PPPvLNDKBrQbgxqwF0dFT7W5I49XbDnk/BA8uEYQf/xtw ahU74WJ5VuwWKMjrBbw+27OzXf0SIxPUsqhgaqSyh4sei8RRpr+RizWoAPAtZ9yZCp5S 9fB9Br5FEqHpzDbbvm6Il3tyidQdxHgCPx3kDAhYSaxlxG/YUC85g1WjzzcYvnN9qMpX 2QGmRBmzRVpiYoQdYdZEbgffNjoEt7AnW5mksMxk2bvDvOSfGoLLR3mxCYXh2uR73poJ QSTVCRYOZsorHJfO7GsZgkVFJYo4Nzj+Mv0L06quVtpDzPldNxd1hAqRT+m0wDGV9gi6 g6kQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532l/hmqYKw8ItEjYanipn5kpsYpoRCCDf1iDPSaT22a8HYVfiuQ n+B8heBanIpBvhvMGV0oCE12jQ0NztI57y0X6J1Sv47Q
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwzK0aT9YSBGA+VhDfXb8ql/FYV5BJVjxJKvqv3w2C0K4k8l4axDxpVAzttaqfcT9nHAC5cWtREFx3FV5XPE24=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:9a89:0:b029:200:1eed:1388 with SMTP id w9-20020aa79a890000b02902001eed1388mr25083710pfi.79.1617024981811; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 06:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Mark Harrison <mark.harrison@cantab.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 14:35:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CAL_MqQWvx=NJW5cvfOOEMLJUCo5XeV6WnD2g+46JSoCVPuFqMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: geojson@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a2455105beacf7b9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/geojson/4ALl55FUpQ_YokrrZOn01DKVBnw>
Subject: [Geojson] Why (lon, lat) in GeoJSON vs (lat, long) in GeoURI RFC 5870 ?
X-BeenThere: geojson@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF GeoJSON WG <geojson.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/geojson>, <mailto:geojson-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/geojson/>
List-Post: <mailto:geojson@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:geojson-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geojson>, <mailto:geojson-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 13:42:40 -0000

Hello

I'm just wondering if there was a really good reason for choosing to
specify longitude before latitude in GeoJSON, other than to create an
unnecessary trip hazard for anyone already familiar with GeoURI (RFC 5870)
which is referenced by GeoJSON / RFC 7946 and which predates it by 6 years,
so many would feel that the precedent for latitude before longitude was
already set and should have been respected in GeoJSON too.

Section 9 of RFC 7946 could have been simpler as a result.

Best wishes

Mark Harrison

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email