[meta] storing geo points on bills?
patcon opened this issue · comments
- http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2015.NY10.43
- http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/getAddressList.do?function=getAgendaItemAddressList&agendaItemId=61134
You mentioned "area" in popolo, so for points, I'm looking at this:
http://www.w3.org/ns/locn#locn:geometry
How's this work for you in extras?
{
"area": [
{
"geometry": {
"type": "point",
"coordinates": [
43.7744611,
-79.34206360000002
]
},
"properties": {
"address": "106 Parkway Forest Drive, Toronto, Ontario"
}
}
]
}EDIT: editted suggestion EDIT: again
Or maybe this is better:
{
"area": [
{
"name": "106 Parkway Forest Drive, Toronto, Ontario",
"geometry": {
"type": "point",
"coordinates": [
43.7744611,
-79.34206360000002
]
},
}
]
}EDIT: I suspect this might be overloading area, so let me know if another key would be best
Better, per-meeting option for parsing:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/getAddressList.do?function=getMeetingAddressList&meetingId=4825
An address is a point, not an area. I would use that vocabulary's fullAddress (full_address) and geometry (GeoJSON) terms.
Awesome. Thanks. I'm not totally sure how to interpret specs like this. Would this conform?
extras: {
"locations": [
{
"address": {
"full_address": "106 Parkway Forest Drive, Toronto, Ontario"
},
"geometry": {
"type": "Point",
"coordinates": [
43.7744611,
-79.34206360000002
]
}
}
]
}EDIT: addressed your comment
Looks good. Though GeoJSON would capitalize "Point".
To confirm, are intersections still ok to use in full_address fields, in your opinion? (Toronto uses those often in their system)
Seems fine to me, if that's how the source expresses the information.
Also, GO TO BED.