[gdal-dev] Wrong sliding when AREA_OR_POINT metadata is edited?

[Even Rouault]

Jukka,
> It is late and I feel fuzzy but shouldn't the pixel_is_point variant has
> smaller easting, greater northing instead, thus (-180,0439453,
> 90,04394531)?
> 
> The images are georeferenced with tiepoints/GCPs, perhaps it adds something
> to the soup?

I concur with your analysis. The compensation done by GDAL to report georeferencing in its 
usual way is done in the wrong direction here. This is specific to tiepoints (geotransform case 
is a different code path), and it appears that this wasn't tested in RFC33 implementation.

Pending fix per
https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/2892

Even

-- 
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20200826/e358bb8e/attachment.html>