The attribute bpolys of indicators should be of type Feature or MultiPolygon not FeatureCollection

[matthiasschaub]

Should an indicator object only have the geometry as attribute or the whole feature (GeoJSON Feature object) including the geometry as attribute?

Also is bpolys a good variable name or should it be renamed to geometry or feature?

[matthiasschaub]

bpolys is used by ohsome API as parameter. It is defined as follows:

WGS84 coordinates given as a list of coordinate pairs (as for bboxes) or GeoJSON FeatureCollection. The first point has to be the same as the last point and MultiPolygons are only supported in GeoJSON; no default value (one boundary parameter must be defined)

[matthiasschaub]

I propose to use geojson.Feature as type of bpolys. That way OQT is agnostic to the geometry type of the feature (e.g. Polygon vs Multipolygon). Maybe rename bpolys to bpoly to differentiate Feature Collection and Feature (ohsome API vs OQT).

[matthiasschaub]

After internal discussions following solution is proposed:

• Rename bpolys to bpoly
• Differentiate bpolys as input parameter from bpolys as attribute of indicator/report classes
  • Input to CLI/API should be a GeoJSON where it does not matter if it is a Feature, FeatureCollection or Geometry
  • Attribute should only contain the geometry -> Type is either Polygon or Multipoligon

[matthiasschaub]

After another internal discussions following solution is proposed:

• The indicator and report classes should get as input an GeoJSON Feature object.
• bpolys will be renamed to feature
• The indicator and report classes will implement geo_interface (Implement __geo_interface__ for indicator class #66)