<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#467886;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="NL" link="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-GB">Hi,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-GB">[ER]: PROJ synthetized a new operation (operation 3) that has the same accuracy than the "correct" (operation 1), and a smaller area of use, thus it was selected.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="EN-GB">Thanks for this fix.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-GB">[GT]: So was the bug confusing orthometric and ellipsoidal?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="EN-GB">No, PROJ used an inappropriate geoid. The 2D Amersfoort datum of the 2D target CRS RD has an ellipsoidal height within 1 m of MSL in the Netherlands. PROJ nevertheless thought it was a good
idea to take the geoid for the vertical target CRS NAP that is to be used on 3D ETRS89 and apply it on the Amersfoort ellipsoidal height.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-GB">[GT]: Am I reading this right that 0 m in EGM2008 is 20 cm in NAP? (I get it that this is super close and we expect close since they are both trying to match mean sea level, with the caveat that mean sea level is
a difficult concept, with EGM2008 tied to some global MSL and NAP to some measured sea level over some period at one(?) tide gauge.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="EN-GB">Yes, NAP and EGM2008 are within 0,4 m. NAP is mean summer hightide in Amsterdam in 1683-1684, way before its open connection to the sea was dammed. Nowadays, MSL in the North Sea is close
to NAP.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-GB">GT: It seems it was about preference for transforms that were all sort of ok.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="EN-GB">Yes, the transformations are more or less correct. I did however start a discussion with EPSG on the Amersfoort to WGS 84 transformation
<a href="https://epsg.org/transformation_4833/Amersfoort-to-WGS-84-4.html">https://epsg.org/transformation_4833/Amersfoort-to-WGS-84-4.html</a> this month. At least, the accuracy should be corrected from 1 m to 1.25 m and the extent enlarged to Netherlands
onshore + offshore. Other options are to remove or to supersede this transformation by a copy of
<a href="https://epsg.org/transformation_9282/Amersfoort-to-ETRS89-NLD-AGRS2010-9.html">
https://epsg.org/transformation_9282/Amersfoort-to-ETRS89-NLD-AGRS2010-9.html</a> or to create a concatenated operation or pipeline to enforce the transformation route Amersfoort - ETRF2000 - WGS 84 (where the second step is a null transformation).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-GB">Regards, Jochem<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<font size="2">Disclaimer:<br>
De inhoud van deze e-mail is vertrouwelijk en uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde(n).<br>
Gebruik, openbaarmaking, vermenigvuldiging, verspreiding en/of verstrekking van deze informatie aan derden is niet toegestaan.<br>
Op al onze producten en diensten zijn onze algemene leveringsvoorwaarden van toepassing<br>
[https://www.kadaster.nl/algemene-leveringsvoorwaarden].<br>
<br>
Disclaimer:<br>
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.<br>
If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.<br>
Our general terms and conditions of delivery apply to all our products and services<br>
[https://www.kadaster.com/general-terms-and-conditions]. <br>
</font>
</body>
</html>