World Projection Peace

Gerald I. Evenden gie at charon.er.usgs.gov
Tue Oct 25 00:26:23 EDT 1994


Last word from me on this subject, I promise.

I have been using, coding, playing with, and all sorts of other
contortions with UTM and its parent, Transverse Mercator, since
the mid-60's.  During this time I have witnessed a great number of
bizarre attempts by the misguided to contort the definition of the
system to their own image.  And each time, the results lead to
confusion and unnecessary problems.  Thus, the Voight problem
is deja vu.

UTM was designed by the military back in the early 40's and has
had a consistant definition outlined in many references.  The only
variant over the years has been the changes of ellipsoids.  The
only inconsistancies are the odd zone limits over southern Norway
and Norwegean arctic islands.  When someone says UTM, there is a
rigid, inflexible, militaristic definition engraved in any
cartographers mind.

Thus, to even whisper UTM while "tweeking" some parameter of the UTM
definition is really a form of blasphemy.  UTM may not be perfect, and
maybe a better projection can be used in a particular area and I
encourage anyone to make appropriate selections to make an ideal
projection but *PLEASE* do not make "UTM" part of its name or
description.

The GIS community has enough confusing problems already without
corruption of standard projection systems and grids.  Correct
terminology is *critical* in avoiding another level of confusion.

Gerald (Jerry) I. Evenden   Internet: gie at charon.er.usgs.gov
voice: (508)563-6766          Postal: P.O. Box 1027
  fax: (508)457-2310                  N.Falmouth, MA 02556-1027



More information about the grass-user mailing list