Subject: [Geojson] metadata in GeoJSON

From: Jimmy Touma <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 19:50:09 -0000

Hello,

I could not find information on the web or the email list on whether I can
add speed data and other metadata into my geojson file. Can this be done
and if so how?

Thank you

---

From: Sean Gillies <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:39:33 +0200

Hi Jimmy,

GeoJSON does not define how metadata is stored. I argued on the list that
it should, but could not get consensus for my proposal. It will be up to
applications to do this in a suitable way. That said, may I make a
suggestion? A Feature's "properties" member is the wrong place for
metadata. I like to see "properties" contain intrinsic attributes of the
thing represented by the "Feature" object, separated from artifacts of a
database or information system. If your Features have, for example,
"created" and "updated" timestamps (following Atom or Dublin Core), you
should add these items to the Feature object alongside "id", not in
"properties." It could be even better to follow the example at
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/feed/v1.0/geojson.php and put
metadata in a "metadata" object.

Discussion and development of GeoJSON extensions is not exactly part of
this working group's charter... Erik and Martin, as chairs, can this list
be used to discuss extensions or should the discussion go elsewhere? Back
to the geojson,org list maybe?

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Jimmy Touma <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> GeoJSON mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geojson
>
>

-- 
Sean Gillies

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 23:30:15 +1000

On 17 August 2016 at 17:39, Sean Gillies <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Discussion and development of GeoJSON extensions is not exactly part of this
> working group's charter... Erik and Martin, as chairs, can this list be used
> to discuss extensions or should the discussion go elsewhere? Back to the
> geojson,org list maybe?

I'm happy to have this remain as a venue for discussing the spec.  The
usual practice with IETF groups, even after we shut them down, is to
keep the list alive for exactly this sort of thing (or if any errata
arise, or if someone wants to do some new work).