[Geowanking] Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Input regarding Axis Order Confusion

[Arnulf Christl]

Sorry for post crossing again.

...cost prossing? coss prosting, must be mixing up axis order.

On Fri, December 15, 2006 18:08, Daniel Morissette wrote:
> The beauty of cross-posting to multiple lists... I just replied to the
> osgeo-discuss fork of this thread asking for an update on what happened
> at OGC this week and just found my answer here.

Lets see whatever Carl Reed from OGC is going to put together officially.
I banged into concrete walls talking about x being the horizontal axis and
first, y being the vertical axis and second and potentially having a z
axis pointing up in coordinates tuples / triples. This will not do as it
does not have an urn and does not comply to whatever OGP (Ex-EPSG) does to
its coordinate axis order and has not rnu through the process of...

> 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 propose
in my stylish humble way to stick with 1.1.1 as long as we can and
undercover try to find that new database.

> WMS 1.1.x has been a huge success, widely adopted and deployed because
> it was simple... simple to implement a server, and simple to implement a
> client... and WMS 1.3 broke that simplicity!

Therefore we will ignore 1.3 and mabe help out to make 2.0 be a real
solution.

> Here ya go... you got me going again... time to stop...

Sorry to be a pain.

> Daniel

And now that everybody is leaving the bunker I will go into the weekend
too and abstain from any electronic devices for - say 37.5 hours. That
should be enough to forget.

Regards,

PS:
Sorry for being so talkative but locking me up in strange environments
makes this happen - the only connection to the world being a fibre cable
in the concrete wall...

> Arnulf Christl wrote:
>> On Wed, December 13, 2006 18:55, Bob Basques wrote:
>>> Arnulf Christl wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>> if you are aware of anything that might enhance information regarding
>>>> the
>>>> great Axis Order Confusion that we are faced with in the spatial realm
>>>> please feel free to add it to this Wiki page:
>>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Axis_Order_Confusion
>>>>
>>> I did add a little tidbit to this related to 3D.
>>>
>>> bobb
>>
>> Thank you so much. I mean - it sounds stupid if I personally thank you
>> for
>> doing this as it is something that comes naturally from a community of
>> which I am just part. My "problem" is that I know that there are quite a
>> few negative vibes around regarding what happened to WMS 1.3 with
>> respect
>> to the axis order (regardless of ommitting SLD) but it seems to be hard
>> to
>> get those people to voice them yet again.
>>
>> I have been at (yet another) discussion regarding what OGC is going to
>> do
>> with respect to changing the axis order in 1.3 and later. It seems like
>> they (we?) are going to stick with it. Why that? Because nobody is
>> against
>> it (here you come in) and it is the "right" way to do it. With respect
>> to
>> the EPSG definitionn this is actually true. With respect to GeoRSS it is
>> actually also true.
>>
>> Nonetheless I wonder whether it really makes sense to write down
>> something
>> like (y,x,z) when noting something down including height. It does not
>> look
>> as stupid if you code it in GeoRSS where height has its own tag "elev".
>> Yeah, but what mess is this?
>>
>> If I am alone with the approach of trying to leave x and y where they
>> belong then I will just shut up and thats it. but we are then losing
>> contact to the standards body and I don't think this is a good idea.
>>
>> If you are tired to talk about this publicly you can get me directly to
>> rant away but please at least do this as I currently feel sort of stupid
>> to have started this discussion (yet again) when it is completely
>> irrelevant to everybody. (I know that my hurt feelings are not a
>> compelling reason to become active but the prospect of breaking a
>> thousand
>> public WMS and drop downward omaptiability did not seem to do the
>> trick?!)
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>>> There is some discussion going as to having to break WMS 1.1.1 (and
>>>> WFS
>>>> and SFS and probably everything) in order to rectify this problem
>>>> which
>>>> I
>>>> think is the end of the world. Well, ok maybe not quite but it will
>>>> make
>>>> things stall, so lets be reasonable on this.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> ****************  You can't be late until you show up.  ***************
>>> ************  You never learn anything by doing it right.  ************
>>> ***  War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.  ***
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe at mail.osgeo.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help at mail.osgeo.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Morissette
> http://www.mapgears.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Geowanking mailing list
> Geowanking at lists.burri.to
> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
>


-- 
Arnulf Christl
http://www.ccgis.de