Added geolocation to spatial extension within annotations #282
Conversation
extensions/spatial.sigmf-ext.md
Outdated
| @@ -203,15 +203,20 @@ object: | |||
| |----|--------|----|-----|-----------| | |||
| |`signal_azimuth`|false|double|degrees|Azimuth in degrees east of true north associated with the specific annotation.| | |||
| |`signal_bearing`|false|[bearing](spatial.sigmf-ext.md#01-the-bearing-object)|N/A|Bearing associated with the specific annotation.| | |||
| | `geolocation` | false | GeoJSON `point` Object | N/A | The location (either known or estimated) of the transmitter corresponding to this annotation | | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lets call this signal_geolocation or emitter_geolocation to avoid confusion with the Annotations Scope latitude and longitude fields.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought we were getting rid of those 2 rows anyway
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Honestly those 2 rows are very confusing because it says use "core:geolocation" but doesnt explain anything else, like if it means rx side or tx side geolocation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it is indeed confusing. Originally these fields were designed to hold the system location and were annotations-scoped to allow changing position. This predates me a bit, but I think everyone agrees it was not the ideal choice.
These have been deprecated since 0.9 and will be formally removed in 2.0
jacobagilbert
force-pushed
the
geolocation-in-spatial-annotations
branch
from
00fdc26
to
95618da
Compare
|
@gmabey or @Nepomuceno can you give this a sanity check before we merge it? |
|
also @jacobagilbert do we bump v1.0.0 to like 1.1.0? |
|
yea, we should. |
|
Looks good. That would definitely be used by us. |
|
ok @jacobagilbert i believe it's ready to squash+merge |
|
The extension version number in the example should probably be updated too. |
To capture the estimated or known location of a transmitter/emission being annotated