<div dir="ltr">I noticed that Proj 6.2.0 seems to apply unit conversion from feet to meters twice when transforming from the following coordinate system to EPSG:4326:<br><br>  COMPD_CS["unknown",PROJCS["unknown",GEOGCS["unnamed ellipse",DATUM["unknown",SPHEROID["unnamed",6378137,298.257222932961],TOWGS84[0,0,0,0,0,0,0]],PRIMEM["Greenwich",0],UNIT["degree",0.0174532925199433,AUTHORITY["EPSG","9122"]]],PROJECTION["Transverse_Mercator"],PARAMETER["latitude_of_origin",42.5017284],PARAMETER["central_meridian",-87.94173071],PARAMETER["scale_factor",1.00002879],PARAMETER["false_easting",2555070.71005833],PARAMETER["false_northing",189709.351551667],UNIT["US survey foot",0.304800609601219,AUTHORITY["EPSG","9003"]],AXIS["Easting",EAST],AXIS["Northing",NORTH]],VERT_CS["unknown",VERT_DATUM["unknown",2005],UNIT["US survey foot",0.304800609601219,AUTHORITY["EPSG","9003"]],AXIS["Up",UP]]]<br><br>Note that this coordinate system is compound and has both a horizontal component and a vertical component in feet. Running cs2cs 6.2.0, I get something like:<br><br>  $cs2cs 'COMPD_CS["unknown",PROJCS["unknown",GEOGCS["unnamed ellipse",DATUM["unknown",SPHEROID["unnamed",6378137,298.257222932961],TOWGS84[0,0,0,0,0,0,0]],PRIMEM["Greenwich",0],UNIT["degree",0.0174532925199433,AUTHORITY["EPSG","9122"]]],PROJECTION["Transverse_Mercator"],PARAMETER["latitude_of_origin",42.5017284],PARAMETER["central_meridian",-87.94173071],PARAMETER["scale_factor",1.00002879],PARAMETER["false_easting",2555070.71005833],PARAMETER["false_northing",189709.351551667],UNIT["US survey foot",0.304800609601219,AUTHORITY["EPSG","9003"]],AXIS["Easting",EAST],AXIS["Northing",NORTH]],VERT_CS["unknown",VERT_DATUM["unknown",2005],UNIT["US survey foot",0.304800609601219,AUTHORITY["EPSG","9003"]],AXIS["Up",UP]]]' +to +init=epsg:4326 <<EOF<br>0.0 0.0 682.1900<br>EOF<br><br>  97d16'41.701"W       41d36'0.332"N 63.378<br><br>Note that 63.378 ~= 682.1900 * 0.304800609601219 * 0.304800609601219. For our use case we're expecting something like 207.932 ~= 682.1900 * 0.304800609601219 instead.<br><br>Is the current PRoj 6.2.0 behavior expected?<br><br>Thanks!<br>Gary</div>