Re: [Geojson] Question regarding position definition in RFC 7946 vs. ISO 6709 / RFC 5870

Martin Daly <Martin.Daly@cadcorp.com> Fri, 01 May 2020 08:26 UTC

Return-Path: <Martin.Daly@cadcorp.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 9FCF43A0C22 for <geojson@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 May 2020 01:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.717
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.717 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.82, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 NB0b66XSUuUd for <geojson@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 May 2020 01:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from japeto.mep.pandasecurity.com (japeto.mep.pandasecurity.com [92.54.27.188]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34FCE3A0C21 for <geojson@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 May 2020 01:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [195.224.141.146] (helo=SRV016VEX.cadcorp.net) by japeto.mep.pandasecurity.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <Martin.Daly@cadcorp.com>) id 1jUR0D-0005Jj-97; Fri, 01 May 2020 10:26:34 +0200
Received: from SRV016VEX.cadcorp.net (10.0.0.6) by SRV016VEX.cadcorp.net (10.0.0.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 1 May 2020 09:28:29 +0100
Received: from SRV016VEX.cadcorp.net ([::1]) by SRV016VEX.cadcorp.net ([::1]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Fri, 1 May 2020 09:28:29 +0100
X-Envelope-From: Martin.Daly@cadcorp.com
From: Martin Daly <Martin.Daly@cadcorp.com>
To: 'Florian Wolff' <Flori@nWolff.de>, "geojson@ietf.org" <geojson@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Geojson] Question regarding position definition in RFC 7946 vs. ISO 6709 / RFC 5870
Thread-Index: AQHWH4KgIBtaYhJOmUqB2xn7qIVL8KiS3c8g
Date: Fri, 01 May 2020 08:28:29 +0000
Message-ID: <08ba31ce277f43dc8f6cb76e98733f92@SRV016VEX.cadcorp.net>
References: <8c171ca6-94cd-de3e-0891-5b96c2609aab@nWolff.de>
In-Reply-To: <8c171ca6-94cd-de3e-0891-5b96c2609aab@nWolff.de>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.0.200.179]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_08ba31ce277f43dc8f6cb76e98733f92SRV016VEXcadcorpnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CTCH-IPCLASS: G2
X-SPF-Received: 5
X-Spamina-Bogosity: Unsure
X-Spamina-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spamina-Spam-Report: Content analysis details: (0.0 points) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: ietf.org] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/geojson/6NSwyLlsoojQORcAqN8WqMGaPIM>
Subject: Re: [Geojson] Question regarding position definition in RFC 7946 vs. ISO 6709 / 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: Fri, 01 May 2020 08:26:43 -0000

Hi Florian,

Assuming that your question is “why does GeoJSON coordinate order contradict ISO 6709 coordinate order?”, then the answer is: because it does.

The decision was taken in full possession of the facts, not lightly, or without regard to the consequences. There are *extensive* email exchanges on lists.geojson.org, if you like that kind of thing. This response, from Howard, is more or less definitive (albeit replying to slightly different questions):

http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/2013-April/000707.html

Martin


From: GeoJSON [mailto:geojson-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Florian Wolff
Sent: 30 April 2020 16:52
To: geojson@ietf.org
Subject: [Geojson] Question regarding position definition in RFC 7946 vs. ISO 6709 / RFC 5870


I stumbled across this definitions years after publication, however please excuse the following question as GeoJSON specifies

   A position is an array of numbers.  There MUST be two or more

   elements.  The first two elements are longitude and latitude, or

   easting and northing, precisely in that order and using decimal

   numbers.

while according to ISO 6709 Standard representation of geographic point location by coordinate and RFC 5870 the order of coordinates is

  1.  First horizontal coordinate (y), such as latitude (negative number south of equator and positive north of equator)
  2.  Second horizontal coordinate (x), such as longitude (negative values west of Prime Meridian and positive values east of Prime Meridian)

With best regards,

Florian.