Talk:Shapefile

message: The following image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapefile#/media/File:Simple_vector_map.svg
is not a shapefile, but as it is said a simple vector map. From this page "A shapefile must not contain both polyline and polygon data, for example, the descriptions for a well (point), a river (polyline), and a lake (polygon) would be stored in three separate datasets."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrOstir (talk • contribs) 07:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading figure 

message: I am going to clean up the file types used to make shapefiles to include both the types made in ArcVIew GIS 3.x and those made by using ArcGIS.  They are different for the spatial and tabular indexes.  user Rcc105
The external links were changed less into a listing of links as they should be and instead became a discussion.  I also think it was done to promote a certain product.  I am changing the external links back to the old version.  --Ray 21:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  File types and external links 

message: Reading the ESIR shapfile spec, page 2 says "Integer: Signed 32-bit integer (4 bytes). This article, however, refers to unsigned integers throughout. This seems to be an error! MatthewVernon (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  uint32 should be int32? 

message: Is the ESRI Shapefile format associated with any legal problems (underlying patents, copyrighted details, proprietary extensions) similar to the GIF or MP3 formats? Is the format compatible with GPL and the Wikipedia Foundation? For the detailed description of the file format, the current article refers to a technical specification, which I guess is copyrighted by ESRI. Is there any copylefted or public domain alternative? --LA2 14:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the ESRI Shapefile White Paper, in particular page 2. Here you will see where they own/have copyrights, trademarks, etc. ESRI has several, such as AML, and ARC GRID, but Shapefile does not appear here (i.e, it does not have a copyright or anything else). It is effectively an open standard, except that it is regulated by a profit organization. Since it is an open standard, there shouldn't be any legal problems whatsoever. I don't think this kind of thing needs to have a license, since it is just a data specification. — Mwtoews 02:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal issues 

message: The current article points out that Shapefiles don't store "topological information", but that word is neither linked nor explained. I'd like to make it a link, but to what? There is an article topological map. In the page topology (disambiguation), one can read that "Topology, is the study or science of places with applications in earth science, geography, human geography, and geomorphology" and also that "Topology, a term used in architecture to describe spatial effects which cannot be described by topography, i.e., social, economical, spatial or phenomenological interactions". But does any of this apply here? --LA2 15:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Topology what?

message: AutoCAD's shape font source file (*.shp) and compiled shape font file (*.shx)
are totaly different from ESRI Shapefile. It is confusing.
Could you mention this in the article in good English?
Viking rollo 14:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything of these formats; however, any article should never be about what the article is not about (although I see your confusion, since AutoCAD and ESRI are similar companies with similar products; also there are dxf <-> shp converters too). I don't think Wikipedia has anything that you speak of, so if you feel ambitious, you could start an AutoCAD font article.+mwtoews 21:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ambiguous AutoCAD shape font file 

message: (.shp-file... ) however this file alone is incomplete for distribution, as it depends on the other supporting files. - the .shx-file however does not depend on others, neither on the .shx (index file depends on the shp, not v.v.) nor on the .dbf (extra attribute information). Cuold any native english speaker/writer correct this? 82.161.234.82 11:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably simplest to remove the dependency term from that statement, which I've done, and just state that the supporting files are required.142.58.206.114 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dependencies 

message: *Keep at Shapefile—it is more common. It is true that "ESRI Shapefile" is an official name, however, ESRI usually refers to the format as simply a "shapefile"—the former only appears on the cover of this white paper, while the bulk volume refers to "shapefile" only. Most of ESRI's other documents also use "shapefile" far more than the longer title (e.g., this doesn't even mention ESRI for the format, and it is the current documentation from ESRI). Also, all the interwikis use "Shapefile" for their name. I think Shapefile (which was the former name of the article—now reverted back) is the better, since it is most common. Prefixing the company name in front of the format name sounds as funny as Adobe PDF. Furthermore, there are many software products that use the format, that have no affiliation with ESRI. It's an open standard. +mt 16:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Note: I reverted the prior move from Shapefile to ESRI Shape format, since this is a really incorrect name. This discussion is whether to keep this article at Shapefile or to move it to ESRI Shapefile.)+mt 18:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move article

message: I would vote to remove the vendor/software specific directions from the "Shapefile spatial index format (.sbn)" — it seems inappropriate to have directions for a particular software product in the entry about a file format.
--JeremyCole (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, delete. It shouldn't be there. I'm sure if it is useful, it could be found on a forum or other place. I suppose the most you could say that the .sbn file is undocumented, and specific only to ESRI products (and I guess not required to define shapefiles).+mt 07:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove directions for .sbn format regeneration? 

message: "Each individual file should conform to the MS DOS 8.3 filename convention (8 character filename prefix, fullstop, 3 character filename suffix such as shapefil.shp) in order to be compatible with past applications that handle shapefiles"
This COULD be recommended for ALL modern software whose files might, under some conceivable circumstance, be read by a program still limited to 8.3 filenames, but generally isn't.  Why here?  Who uses what that justifies this caveat?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.160.105.151 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of dBase file requires the 8+3 naming convention. For example, Microsoft's JET provider won't open a dBase file with a longer file name. Even the newest versions have this limitation. However, if you use a more intelligent implementation (GIS software, or LibO Calc) you don't have to worry about long file names. ITinerisKft (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

text: The other issue is that you almost never work with single shapefiles -- you almost always work with collections, and the application software you're using typically constructs the names for the several files making up the collection (whatever.shp, whatever.shx, whatever.dbf, etc.).  So, unlike an application that simply opens the one file whose pathname you feed it, shapefile-manipulating applications also have to manipulate and construct shapefile-related pathnames, and it's likely that some of them were written in such a way that they still depend on (that is, enforce) the old 8.3 restriction. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which applications? How old? How common? 

message: I'm assuming it's doubles and pairs of them for 2d shapes and triplets for 3d (Edit: Checked the whitepaper: A little more complex than that) but it would be nice if it was actually written in there explicitly, especially as endianness varies. 67.107.93.2 (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Does not specify format(s) for storage of the shapes

message: Our article correctly states that "Because the shape type precedes each geometry record, a shapefile is physically capable of storing a mixture of different shape types", but that the official specification prohibits such mixing.  It's inconceivable to me that no one has taken steps (if only informally) towards relaxing this arbitrary restriction.  If there are any applications which support "mixed" shapefiles, any established conventions for doing so, it would be great to document them here. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixing shape types 

message: The article mentions that M can be optional, but it is not entirely clear how. This is by supplying a magic value that indicates unknown for points and header MBRs. Allocating insufficient size for the additional information appears to be the way of doing this on a per row basis which is odd for a format that requires all entries to be of the same type.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.43.100 (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Only M is optional, and is read if the record length (or "content length") is long enough to read the values. See page 5 of the white paper, which is the primary reference for the format used in this encyclopedia article. +mt 03:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optional 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shapefile&diff=next&oldid=65438043 changed the description from "open specification" to "mostly open specification", currently "(mostly) open specification".
But what is a "mostly open" specification? In my perspective, it is either open or it isn't, and in any case the term here used is ambiguous and should either be changed or at least needs a clarification. -- Mind Booster Noori (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  mostly open specification