Monday, 25 February 2013

OGC and lowering the bar of implementation




1 comment:

Brad Hards said...

In defence of the GeoPackage draft standard, much of the "its all too much" and "its too long too read" ignores that its how OGC does business.

That is partly driven by trying to get ISO standards format compatibility. I'd personally be happy for that to go away, but there is a lot of customer and big business demand for that kind of stuff.

The comparison between mbtiles and geopackage isn't all that reasonable, because geopackage supports a lot more than one tile set, web-mercator, power-2 zoom level. If all you need is mbtiles, then use it. If you want to hold vector data (e.g. POI, boundaries, lines), photos, multiple tile sets, polar data, or anything else that might come out of a WMS/WCS/WFS/WMTS server, then geopackage is probably a better bet.

I'd like to remove stuff than no-one will use. However non-specific "make it simpler" isn't going to help. If there is stuff that could come out to make it simpler, please help us to identify it.