Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

GeoPackage SWG Overview


Published on

Jeff Yutzler presents an update of the GeoPackage Standards Working Group to the OGC Technical Committee.

Published in: Engineering
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

GeoPackage SWG Overview

  1. 1. ® Sponsored by GeoPackage Standards Working Group 98th OGC Technical Committee Washington, DC USA 08 March 2016 Copyright © 2016 Open Geospatial Consortium
  2. 2. OGC ® Agenda • Introductions – JY (10 minutes) • GeoPackage 1.1 – JY (30 minutes) • GeoPackage Elevation Extension Interoperability Experiment – Carl Reed (20 minutes) • NSG Profile – Roy Rathbun (15 minutes) • GeoPackage Compliance – Matt Sorenson (10 minutes) • Future Considerations – JY (10 minutes) • Implications for an OGC GeoPackage Symbology Encoding Standard (Discussion Paper) – JY (10 minutes) Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
  3. 3. OGC ® Introductions and Roll Call • Jeff Yutzler, Image Matters LLC (chair) • Thomas Nierynck, Luciad (vice chair) Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
  4. 4. OGC ® Patent Call INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS POLICY of the Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc. as approved on 19 December 2008 Please be aware that this meeting is being held under the Intellectual Property Rights Policy adopted by OGC. If you do not have a copy of this policy, please see me (the meeting Chair) during this meeting. You may also view and download a copy of that policy at: At this time, I would ask that anyone in attendance inform me if they are personally aware of any claims under any patent applications or issued patents that would be likely to be infringed by an implementation of the standard or other work product which is the subject of this meeting. You need not be the inventor of such patent or patent application in order to inform us of its existence, nor will you be held responsible for expressing a belief that turns out to be inaccurate. Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
  5. 5. OGC ® Tile Pyramids 24 zoom levels GeoPackage: Raster Maps, Images and Feature Data in One File Raster Maps: Small – Large Scale Imagery Low – High Resolution Single File Sqlite Database containing all data for direct-use on mobile platforms & handheld devices Feature Data
  6. 6. OGC ® What is GeoPackage • Open format for geospatial information – Vector geospatial features – Raster tile matrix sets (pyramids) of imagery and raster maps at various scales – Extensions • SQLite database schema – Table definitions – Integrity assertions – Format limitations – Content constraints Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
  7. 7. OGC ® • Go here first! • Web version of specification • News, implementations, sample data, and FAQ • Hyperlinks for participants (quickest way to portal, Wiki, etc.) Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
  8. 8. OGC ® GitHub Hosting • • We’re the first SWG to do as much as possible on GitHub – Encourages public input – Provides more modern tools – Portal, Wiki, and email list still used to conduct SWG business and to protect participants’ intellectual property • Issue Tracker – • hosted by GH Pages – Suggestions welcome – Pull requests too! See the gh-pages branch. Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
  9. 9. OGC ® Vector Tables • Similar to other relational databases • Built on existing standards – OGC Simple Features – Well-known Binary (WKB) • Not subject to many of Shapefile’s limitations Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
  10. 10. OGC ® Raster Tile Matrix Sets (Pyramids) Raster Basemaps and Imagery available online from raster tile servers (WMS, WMTS) and offline in GeoPackages Raster Maps: Small – Large Scale Imagery Low – High Resolution Single Raster Tile Server w/ raster basemap & imagery data. Tile Pyramid 24 zoom levels Geopackage w/ Raster Tile Data Tile Pyramid 24 zoom levels OGC Web Services to online clients/apps WMS, WMTS, WFS
  11. 11. OGC ® Brief History • Foundations established prior to 2012 – SQLite3 ( – SpatiaLite ( – MBTiles ( • 2012 – Concept initiated by USACE’s AGC/TEC and NGA at a hosted TEM with FOSS / commercial software developers – Started as Google Groups; moved to OGC due to need for standards development structure and potential IPR concerns • Oct. 2012 – SWG charter established • 2013-present – OGC Web Services (OWS) Testbeds – Phase 9 developed initial draft spec; others built prototype applications • Feb. 2014 – Encoding Standard (1.0) adopted by OGC – Mandated as of DISR* 14-2 • Early 2015 – Corrigendum (1.0.1) adopted by OGC Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium * Defense Information Systems Registry
  12. 12. OGC ® Benefits • Supports sharing of raster and vector geospatial information in a single container • Supports direct use – Avoid intermediate format translations (extract, transform, load) – SQLite is a true relational database with built-in indexing • Platform independent, supporting multiple computing environments (hardware and operating system) – Local storage reduces power requirements and supports disconnected/intermittent/limited connectivity – Conserves storage space by allowing multiple applications to access the same data store Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
  13. 13. OGC ® Emerging Uses • Mobile applications • Data dissemination, including but not limited to foundation GEOINT • Not the solution for everything – For simpler vector applications, GeoJSON may be plenty – In some enterprises an SQLite-based solution may be inappropriate Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
  14. 14. OGC ® State of GeoPackage • Emerging as an important geospatial standard • Faster adoption than other OGC standards: – 16+ separate vendors listed on – Promptly added to the US Defense Information Systems Registry (DISR) – Will it win #TheShapefileChallenge ? • Areas for improvement: – Data distribution (we are not seeing as much GeoPackage data in the wild as we could) – Implementation guidance (we could use more helpful content on Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
  15. 15. OGC ® GeoPackage Implementation Examples • GDAL • Luciad Lightspeed, Mobile, and Fusion • QGIS • Esri ArcGIS (10.2.2 for vector, 10.3 for tiles) • NGA • SpatiaLite (4.2.0) • GeoServer • Compusult • GeoTools • US Army ERDC • Envitia MapLink • Terrago (GeoPDF)
  16. 16. OGC ® GeoPackage 1.1 • The SWG has developed a Technical Amendment to the GeoPackage Encoding Standard “Where…an OGC Standard is used…but technical changes are needed, a deliverable may be proposed for amendment. An amendment alters and/or adds to an existing OGC standard [and results] in a new version number of the document. An amendment may consist of additional reference examples, use cases, schema changes, and other normative and informative content or clarifications.” ( 020r20.html#125) • Technical Amendment – more than corrigenda, but less than a completely new edition of the standard. Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
  17. 17. OGC ® GeoPackage 1.1 (continued) • Goal: Improve the standard (especially readability and interoperability) without harming existing implementations • Requires: Release Notes (15-123r1 posted on Pending Documents) SWG Approval OGC Architecture Board review and approval – IPR review period – TC Vote (at TC meeting or by e-vote) • The plan is for the vote to occur this week. Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
  18. 18. OGC ® Review of Substantive Changes • All work was done in GitHub (see • #102 – Add REQ 45 to describe tile matrix width and height to eliminate interoperability failure • #132 – Collapse all extensions under Annex F. for improved readability • #137 – Add new extension for CRS WKT support (OGC 12-063r5) • #147 – Demote metadata / schema to extensions • #130 – Fix casing of column names for Schema • #189 – Update Application ID to 1.1 Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
  19. 19. OGC ® Requirement 45 • Interoperability issue discovered during GeoPackage Plugfest (2014-5) – Tile numbering was inconsistent between implementations – some used “tight” bounds and others used “potential” bounds to allow sharing between tile sets • We added the following: The width of a tile matrix (the difference between min_x and max_x in gpkg_tile_matrix_set) SHALL equal the product of matrix_width, tile_width, and pixel_x_size for that zoom level. Similarly, height of a tile matrix (the difference between min_y and max_y in gpkg_tile_matrix_set) SHALL equal the product of matrix_height, tile_height, and pixel_y_size for that zoom level. Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium This won.
  20. 20. OGC ® CRS WKT Support • OGC recently adopted 12-063r5 to address shortcomings in previous documents • We want to provide a migration path while not breaking existing implementations • Solution: Create a new extension – Implementations that support this extension add a column to gpkg_spatial_ref_sys called “definition_12_063” – Implementations shall populate both this column and the original “definition” column – In some cases, one or the other may be “undefined” Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
  21. 21. OGC ® Questions Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
  22. 22. OGC ® GPKG-EE IE Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
  23. 23. OGC ® NSG Profile Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
  24. 24. OGC ® GeoPackage Compliance Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
  25. 25. OGC ® Future Considerations • Over the summer, we conducted an on-line survey to gauge interest in potential extensions. • We asked about the following: – Symbology/Styling – Multi-Resolution Geometries – Routing – New Geometry Types – New Image Types – Point Clouds – UTFGrid – Synchronization – Coverages © 2016 Open Geospatial Consortium 25
  26. 26. OGC ® Survey Results Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium
  27. 27. OGC ® Testbed 12 • Testbed 12 is at least partially addressing some of our proposed topic areas – Symbology/Styling – Routing – Others? © 2016 Open Geospatial Consortium 27
  28. 28. OGC ® Testbed 12 Engineering Reports • As an aside, the Testbed sponsors have requested that at least three GeoPackage-related Engineering Reports be produced – A082 GeoPackage Routing and Symbology – A083 GeoPackage Mobile Apps Integration – A085 GeoPackage Change Request Evaluations • We will bring these to the SWG for review as per – © 2016 Open Geospatial Consortium 28
  29. 29. OGC ® Implications for a Symbology Extension • OGC 15-122r1 evaluated this topic and proposed the following next steps: – Discuss this proposal in the broader community (outside the SWG itself) to reach a consensus on approach. – Prioritize the use cases and pursue design and reference implementations of the viable use case(s). – Establish a separate working group, coordinating with the GeoPackage SWG (composed of interested GeoPackage SWG members and other stakeholders) – Analyze applicable informative references to apply towards defining a draft specification to address viable use cases identified. © 2016 Open Geospatial Consortium 29
  30. 30. OGC ® Motion • The GeoPackage SWG recommends that OGC 15-122r1 be recommended to the Technical Committee for release as a Discussion Paper. – Motion: Jeff Yutzler – Second: ??? – Discussion? – Objection to Unanimous Consent? © 2016 Open Geospatial Consortium 30
  31. 31. OGC ® Multi-Resolution Geometries • The SWG has determined that the best way to address this issue is through data modeling as opposed to a change to the standard – • In response, we posted the following: – © 2016 Open Geospatial Consortium 31
  32. 32. OGC ® New Geometry Types • This capability is already available through two extensions: – GeoPackage Non-Linear Geometry Types (F.1) – User Defined Geometry Types Extension of GeoPackageBinary Geometry Encoding • At this time we do not have clear guidance on using these extensions – • There is some concern that these extensions are unusable in their current form • We are looking for volunteers © 2016 Open Geospatial Consortium 32
  33. 33. OGC ® Other Topic Areas Not Under Development • New Image Types • Point Clouds – maybe ask the Point Cloud DWG? • UTFGrid • Synchronization • Coverages • These can all be handled through extensions…if we have the will © 2016 Open Geospatial Consortium 33
  34. 34. OGC ® Making Good Extensions • May be developed by the SWG or brought in from outside • Must have: Clear Use Case Sound technical approach – Must be compatible with clients that just implement the core Commitment from critical mass of vendors (usually 3) to implement Copyright © 2015 Open Geospatial Consortium