-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
RFC for geospatial indexing #87
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Adam Kaczmarek <[email protected]>
1132bab
to
8335d89
Compare
Signed-off-by: Adam Kaczmarek <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Adam Kaczmarek <[email protected]>
|
||
## Open Questions | ||
|
||
- **Coordinate Reference Systems**: Should multiple coordinate reference systems be supported, or should the system standardize on WGS 84? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IMO, starting with WGS 84 is a good approach while keeping in mind that additional reference systems could be supported in the future.
## Open Questions | ||
|
||
- **Coordinate Reference Systems**: Should multiple coordinate reference systems be supported, or should the system standardize on WGS 84? | ||
- **3D Geospatial Data**: Should three-dimensional data (latitude, longitude, altitude) be supported in the future? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It would be good to keep this in mind as a potential future enhancement during implementation.
|
||
- **Coordinate Reference Systems**: Should multiple coordinate reference systems be supported, or should the system standardize on WGS 84? | ||
- **3D Geospatial Data**: Should three-dimensional data (latitude, longitude, altitude) be supported in the future? | ||
- **Advanced Spatial Queries**: Should additional spatial predicates (e.g., intersects, contains) be supported beyond radius and bounding box searches? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same as the previous comment.
No description provided.