[gdal-dev] Patch for GDAL Web Mercator Issue / trac 3962

[David Fogel]

I have updated the trac ticket after fooling with GDAL and ESRI (ArcGIS)
the past two weeks.   It would appear that nothing fancy is required.
Referencing the name in the EPSG registry in addition to the minimum
specifications or this ProjCRS should work.   Hacks would be required for
software that is not GDAL (or PROJ4, etc.) or ESRI.  Really, this means
that the name , which is in a standard, ought to be the identifier.

= David


On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Michael Rosen <mrosen at lizardtech.com>wrote:

> I concur that it is desirable to be able to recognize this projection in
> which ever “Well Known” Text is appears.  To paraphrase Douglas Adams, “this
> is obviously some strange use of the term *well-known* that I wasn't
> previously aware of.****
>
> ** **
>
> msr****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* gdal-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:
> gdal-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *Frank Warmerdam
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:32 PM
> *To:* Stefano Iacovella
>
> *Cc:* gdal-dev
> *Subject:* Re: [gdal-dev] Patch for GDAL Web Mercator Issue / trac 3962***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> Folks,****
>
> ** **
>
> I have no problem with EPSG code 3857 as a PCS in GeoTIFF files.  It is
> widely accepted that any EPSG PCS is acceptable there.****
>
> ** **
>
> What is less clear to me is the most appropriate formulation of Web
> Mercator in WKT.  Potentially, we could move to encoding semi_major and
> semi_minor in the projection parameters as overrides, and then translate to
> the ESRI format and back in our morphing code.****
>
> ** **
>
> Mike, if we do incorporate your patch, I think we should also consider
> ways of recognising some of the other variations. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Best regards,****
>
> Frank****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Stefano Iacovella <
> stefano.iacovella at gmail.com> wrote:****
>
> ** **
>
> 2013/8/29 Even Rouault <even.rouault at mines-paris.org>****
>
> My main question is : how sure are we about the projection name
> "Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere" to be the appropriate one for "standard" WKT ?
> Is
> there some reference from that ? The fact that ESRI uses it doesn't make it
> necesserarily a standard (although it can serve as a base if there's no
> alternative).****
>
> ** **
>
> According to http://epsg-registry.org/, not an ISO standard but quite a
> de facto standard, EPSG:3857 is "WGS 84 / Pseudo-Mercator "****
>
> ** **
>
> Kind Regards,****
>
> Stefano
> ****
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 41.95581N 12.52854E
>
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/stefanoiacovella
>
> http://twitter.com/#!/Iacovellas****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gdal-dev mailing list
> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
> warmerdam at pobox.com
> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
> and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Software Developer****
>
> _______________________________________________
> gdal-dev mailing list
> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20131015/36584589/attachment.html>