| |||||||||||||
vehicle-centric standard?vehicle-centric standard?Posted Sep 30, 2009 0:06 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: vehicle-centric standard? by roelofs Parent article: TomTom unveils OpenLR location-referencing format
true, but it would still be FAR better than the current situation where everyone keeps the data walled up and separate.
if someone has a suggestion as to how to alter the proposed standard to better support these other options, by all means make it.
however, you don't want use of this to flounder due to efforts to make it perfect.
it's a lot easier to supplement a vehicle-biased database like this with additional data than to create it from scratch.
(Log in to post comments)
vehicle-centric standard? Posted Oct 1, 2009 3:23 UTC (Thu) by roelofs (guest, #2599) [Link] it's a lot easier to supplement a vehicle-biased database like this with additional data than to create it from scratch.Good points all, but the flip side is that standards become much harder to change after everything's baked in (unless they're explicitly designed for extensibility, like PNG), and many early adopters never get around to updating their code to later versions. In this case, both of the fields I mentioned are explicitly limited to 3 bits, i.e., just enough to support the 8 values they've already defined, and I see no allowance for any sort of "escape value" or other form of extension. Seems like premature optimization. I'll try to submit a comment to their standardization process... Greg
|
|||||||||||||