Call for brain power

I believe that TWKB can be something good. It can be a very fast format for moving geometries around.

If TWKB is going to be something more than a few demos like here and here, more brain power is needed.

My vision for TWKB is thatin 2013 it will:

  • be supported in Leaflet and OpenLayers 3
  • be in the trunk for relaese in PostGIS 2.2
  • be supported by OGR
  • have more than 5 contributors to the specification

What I have so far with TWKB is collected here. It is a github, divided in 3 parts.

First part is the specification.

Second part is the PostGIS implementation of the spec (Type 1 to 24 is implemenetd)

The last part is the web related scripts, like webserver and client-implementation

All this above is just meant as something to start the discussion from. The goal is to find a very efficient and flexible binary format for geometries.

For me myself I also hope that someone will hire or employ me so I can work with things like this on day time :-) I have a lot of ideas I would like to test.

Tags: , , ,

2 Responses to “Call for brain power”

  1. Brad Hards says:

    I had a quick look, and I understand that you want “very efficient and flexible binary format for geometries”. What I don’t understand is why.

    What isn’t efficient (enough) or flexible (enough) about WKB? I don’t doubt that there are more efficient encapsulations for geometry that are possilbe, but there probably tradeoffs (e.g. less redundancy, harder to validate, whatever).

    You might have more success if you can explain the advantages (and disadvantages) of TWKB relative to other options (WKB, postigs EWKB, GeoJSON) and why TWKB is worth the effort.

  2. Nicklas Avén says:

    This will need a whole blog post, but a short answer now.

    When it comes to computers I don’t think there is anything like efficient or fast enough, especially not since the over all experience with computers today often is far more slow and frustrating than 20 years ago.

    There is of course tradeoffs like “harder to validate” but “less redundancy” must be something good, or… ?

    To get some numbers:

    example: LINESTRING(10 10,15 15,10 15)
    WKB: 57 bytes
    TWKB: 22 bytes (actually just 10 bytes as of spec v 0.5)

    The more coordinates the more we save. But of course, you cannot hold 10 decimals of your coordinates in TWKB, but that is rarely necessary. I guess most real world maps don’t have better accuracy than 2 decimals if meter based projection.

Leave a Reply