Remove KML

[kannes]

The text already says that KML has had its heyday. I see no point in recommending a limited, useless format like it?

[jachym]

Same as geodatabase - let's move it to some separate section?

Same actually applies for CSV - it's just one of the formats mentioned, which sometimes occurs on some occasions.

[jyutzler]

I personally believe that relegating KML to the bottom of the page is reasonable. How about you @kannes?

[kannes]

I argue that no-one in their right mind should bother to switch from Shapefiles to KML. :}

[jachym]

well, same applies to CSV, right?

But using same logic, is geojson and gml relevant too?

[jyutzler]

GeoJSON has a legitimate use in the market. I would recommend it over Shapefiles in any sort of web service environment or anywhere that you have a modest amount of data and don't really need indexing.

GML is a different case, but invariably people who need its capabilities already know about it and are using it. I wouldn't recommend for someone to switch from Shape to GML. It is sort of like switching from a horse-and-buggy to a tank. I guess in this analogy GeoJSON is more like a bicycle and GeoPackage is more like a car.

[edips]

I think text based formats like GML, KML, GeoJSON are slow compared to SHP when importing - exporting - processing them with big data. But i think it depends on design of algorithms of GIS softwares or libraries.