Please support the RFC 7946 (published in August 2016) as it is the new standard specification of the GeoJSON format.
Archived
RFC 7946 the new standard specification of the GeoJSON format
This post is closed to further activity.
It may be an old question, an answered question, an implemented idea, or a notification-only post.
Please check post dates before relying on any information in a question or answer.
For follow-up or related questions, please post a new question or idea.
If there is a genuine update to be made, please contact us and request that the post is reopened.
It may be an old question, an answered question, an implemented idea, or a notification-only post.
Please check post dates before relying on any information in a question or answer.
For follow-up or related questions, please post a new question or idea.
If there is a genuine update to be made, please contact us and request that the post is reopened.
+59- Safer
There are four parts to that spec that we can update:
- Right-hand polygon orientation (winding)
- Splitting geometries into collections when they cross 180 degrees
- Storing all data in LL84, with Z in meters if present
- Setting application/geo+json as the mime type
As far as I know, polygon orientation and mime type were updated in 2017.0.
The coordinate system is updated for 2017.1 - a new 'Reproject to WGS84' parameter was added to the writer. It defaults to 'yes' meaning new workspaces will automatically produce this coordinate system, while old workspaces will behave as they always did (for backwards compatibility).
[nb: if you have an old workspace, but want to comply to the new spec's coordinate system, then simply reproject to LL84 in a transformer. Then it will write the data in LL84 but with no coordsys definition - meeting the new spec]
So, geometry splitting seems to be the only remaining item to do. For reference, it is PR#72160
+19- Influencer
I think GeoJSON FeatureCollections defeat GeometryReplacer with GeoJSON as the option.
+19- Influencer
Z needs to be controlled as positive up too. I see GeoJSON out there with depth coordinates positive down.
+6- Safer
Currently there is a problem with the GeoJSON writer when writing multiple feature types. The workaround for now is to use one feature type per dataset, or use dataset fanout. A more comprehensive solution is planned for 2018.1. For more info see: https://knowledge.safe.com/articles/40806/workarounds-to-known-issues-in-fme-20170.html
Login to the community
No account yet? Create an account
An FME Account is required to contribute
LoginEnter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.