Integrate topobathy LDP classes into specification

[esilvia]

Also, are there any immediate objections to adding the following classes:
40 Bathymetric bottom / Bathymetric point /Submerged topography / Seafloor or riverbed
41 Water surface
42 Derived water surface /synthetic
43 Submerged object (unspecified)
44 International Hydrographic Organization object (unspecified)
45 Water column /No bottom found at bathy point/ Neither surface nor bottom

From my (subjective) perspective it would be helpful to have these classes formally standardized. Please let me know :)

Originally posted by @milenajaniec in #11 (comment)

[esilvia]

If we're going to fold the bathy domain profile into the ASPRS standard set of classes, I think it probably needs to have a class added for submerged aquatic vegetation. That's one we've noticed as missing since the domain profile was created. Probably class 46.
Originally posted by @kjwaters in #11 (comment)

[esilvia]

I definitely concur with adding/formalizing topo-bathy domain profile classes 40-45, as defined in Milena's post, and 46, as defined by Kirk.
Originally posted by @parrishOSU in #11 (comment)

[esilvia]

a) Kirk, I see your point, I think class 46 (submerged aquatic vegetation) would be a useful addition.

b) Does anyone have any preferences in terms of naming classes 40-45?

Originally posted by @milenajaniec in #11 (comment)

[esilvia]

I'm reluctant to formalize classifications that only serve a single domain. I know there's already some reserved classifications for the utility sector, but I think that was a mistake and it's too late for me to change it. I'd rather promote usage of LDPs.

I acknowledge that the topobathy LDP is badly in need of updating. Personally, I think that's a separate issue. I haven't figured out yet what the best publication method for that will be (wiki, standalone PDF, LAS spec).

Originally posted by @esilvia in #11 (comment)

[esilvia]

I understand your reluctance; however, since we are receiving an increased number of the topo-bathymetric projects, it would be worth to accommodate them somehow in the revision. Currently, the classification seems to be open. It would be helpful if we could standardize it. Especially, since we are already making changes. We could endeavor to formally incorporate the above-mentioned classes (which are already in use) at the same time.

Originally posted by @milenajaniec in #11 (comment)

[esilvia]

I believe we have decided to not do this and instead update the LDP as described in #117