Re: services_openstreetmap and a new geo category

On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Christian Weiske <cweiske@cweiske.de> wrote: > 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. I think that since this is a service wrapper, it should be Services_* regardless. Same for KML – technically it's for "File Formats". Maybe we could have more categories – e.g. for secondary topics (such as Geo) and to increase findability (I just made this up). >> 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. Till