[Geowanking] Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Input regarding Axis Order Confusion
jgarnett at refractions.net
Fri Dec 15 23:03:14 PST 2006
That is great, it will give us a way to be explicit about what is going
on. Next step is to drive adoption - any chance of WMS cite tests that
can test conformance in this matter?
I have long desired a "client test", probably consists of a very mean
server (sorry exactly); and some screen snapshots of what the client
should display. Could probably be reduced to a series of WMS-Context
> Let me try to clarify. There's a clear path forward in OGC to specify
> WGS84 decimal degrees in X,Y order. It's to use this CRS:
> So there's no need for another organization to define one.
> Now, the only problem is that so many people have grown accustomed to
> thinking EPSG:4326 means X,Y order that we worry about people having
> to get used to a different name. I know
> "urn:x-ogc:def:crs:OGC:1.3:CRS84" is very long, but that's what
> happens when people try to be extremely precise about their meaning.
> If you just read the above and starting screaming about the length of
> the string, a community could adopt a convention to use "OGC1.3CRS84"
> to mean the same thing without losing any precision.
> On Dec 15, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Arnulf Christl wrote:
>>> So nobody present at the OGC meeting saw the issue? It's not about
>>> deciding which one is "correct" between x,y, or y,x, or lon,lat, or
>>> lat,lon ... I could not care less as long as pick one and only one and
>>> go with it. Variable axis order based on SRS code like what has been
>>> introduced in WMS 1.3 is the worst possible situation for
>>> interoperability IMNSHO.
>> I am missing out on a practical alternative. If I get this right "we"
>> would need to create a repository with coordinate reference systems that
>> go for x,y(,z) and go "our" own way. This will be a stony way so I
>> in my stylish humble way to stick with 1.1.1 as long as we can and
>> undercover try to find that new database.
> Geowanking mailing list
> Geowanking at lists.burri.to
More information about the Discuss