[Geojson] Question regarding RFC 7946
Andrew Harvey <andrew@alantgeo.com.au> Mon, 12 March 2018 11:31 UTC
Return-Path: <andrew@alantgeo.com.au>
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 5EE77127337 for <geojson@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 04:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=alantgeo.com.au header.b=PSgWdBGX; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=i1Idj/vW
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 t1Ai7KGp23h5 for <geojson@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 04:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BCF51272E1 for <geojson@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 04:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58DA620BE0 for <geojson@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 07:31:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web3 ([10.202.2.213]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 12 Mar 2018 07:31:00 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alantgeo.com.au; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; bh=Fcer6KguIicz+VkB7+5+J5pkrkaUJzBiAwr+otV3wK4=; b=PSgWdBGX DXwnoRVG/ZbOufiRRaI91s1nXVbt9bObhoh3/GAHoXWSDY61YJnyjb1YqLJGgT62 YAVWquMDsmvfoJjwQnCTn69tEFA9HTAL8pn4kMfVKeExcs3i7gKf+paGd+KD9GJ6 9LnrFRmtpSlrd/99GSFnTK2d1dFpc0XyYzEMjb+86vqGNToafAVL78Re8RtgD5db MSehoAtCQQbGm+kLGyRMs1XwCURUW7eO/Ji/nxGV0t4DGJ7zP3Y0SmZXWvjxMCjy Bb0x11EtX6/DrJdb0iM3lFaY8cnJ+f3ZBLI3GWWZ0BVuOQ/96b5Gssjy7zu5QNRZ 2sbJ20KYqvqZPw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=Fcer6KguIicz+VkB7+5+J5pkrkaUJ zBiAwr+otV3wK4=; b=i1Idj/vW4a2wxwQub/wo5EFkX1Rdk/2K3k58C+dnH1ZHz gUm3B9HpnqFIcSV+3eE7jYi/Xe07muMbM6jv0vWp6Sm3vVbE3KzjADs9fiC84Yui qxM71yKvhJ/BamkNHRE/dy30reapCkgq4m5RL2E0OIQ/KoelruDxgDspmSp83apM 70s0L4gbaYrt97dFWDkD4z0FjONx2pv6X+b5ZNJt+rnTse9O58ktE1yPvQRQxm2X Q5dyVmDvthsvEktj7D1/l38Lv8jw36SQbIdyq5DnZIkDtiRGyuw4r29oGbmf6Zqk dmjfWyOL6uFoL9fcN3V+6BqDGmHA3oU0jVWZioyBQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:9GSmWiLZTNtzn61CHqpGhjX1B-DaAmRMK-bDquu1XlxfuhyyvBPoFg>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 2EC6D9E0DA; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 07:31:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1520854260.3778274.1299897800.172BEEF4@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Andrew Harvey <andrew@alantgeo.com.au>
To: geojson@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_152085426037782741"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-54087d22
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 22:31:00 +1100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/geojson/U9CSgsgl8Xtzq538Pd-kp6ZOD8s>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 06:07:20 -0700
Subject: [Geojson] Question regarding RFC 7946
X-BeenThere: geojson@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 12 Mar 2018 11:33:35 -0000
The spec says: > For Polygons with more than one of these rings, the first MUST be the > exterior ring, and any others MUST be interior rings. The exterior > ring bounds the surface, and the interior rings (if present) bound > holes within the surface So does that mean that a Polygon geometry which has two interior rings where one falls inside another shouldn't create an island within a hole rather the smaller interior ring contained by the larger one becomes nullified? That is, the rendering we see at https://gist.github.com/andrewharvey/c092a6c4932a4d94ecb6cd59dc935b90 is wrong and it shouldn't show an island in the middle? This arose when thinking about https://github.com/Turfjs/turf/issues/1305 Many thanks, -- Andrew Harvey CEO *Alantgeo* www.alantgeo.com.au https://au.linkedin.com/in/andrewharveyau @alantgeo[1] Links: 1. https://twitter.com/alantgeo
- [Geojson] Question regarding RFC 7946 Andrew Harvey
- Re: [Geojson] Question regarding RFC 7946 Martin Daly
- Re: [Geojson] Question regarding RFC 7946 Andrew Harvey