Re: services_openstreetmap and a new geo category

Hello Ken, > Services_openstreetmap is now through the PEPR process > http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=667. > As I think it would be more appropriate for it to be in a new Geo > category that I'd mentioned during the PEPR process I was wondering > what the next step would be? I'm not so sure we should do that. If you made a generic mapping package that abstracted from OSM, Google and Bing, then this would be a fine fit for Geo. But since it interfaces the service only, it should - in my eyes - stay in the service category. > Robert McLeod's create_kml proposal ( > http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=616 ) would > also > be a good fit for this category. Potentially the Map_Projection > proposal, if it comes to completion, could fit into this category > too. So this new geo category wouldn't be just a vanity category with > just one package inside it. Yep, those two would fit in there fine. > The project is hosted on github and I know I can just rename the > repository from Services_Openstreetmap to Geo_OpenStreetMap - but the > simplest approach isn't always necessarily the best. Are there any > PEAR RFCs for this scenario? No that I know of. -- Regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen Christian Weiske -=≡ Geeking around in the name of science since 1982 ≡=-

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] signature.asc