FW: [MetaCRS] RE: Initial commit of CSV Test data files

[Martin Davis]

If this kind of metadata is added I would really prefer to see it 
expressed as a separate column(s).  It's much easier to specify and 
process that way.

Martin

Landon Blake wrote:
> In the end, you could add something to the comment column of the test
> data CSV file that clarified the access order. We made the column names
> generic to add that flexibility, correct?
>
> Landon
> Office Phone Number: (209) 946-0268
> Cell Phone Number: (209) 992-0658
>  
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: metacrs-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> [mailto:metacrs-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Frank Warmerdam
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 11:48 AM
> To: Norm Olsen
> Cc: metacrs at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [MetaCRS] RE: Initial commit of CSV Test data files
>
> Norm Olsen wrote:
>   
>> Interesting point.  EPSG does specify latitude, longitude, and then
>>     
> height.  My experience says that many (if not most) coordinate system
> libraries use the longitude, latitude, height convention.  That is,
> 99.8% of the time and regardless of whether the coordinate system is
> projective or geographic, the first ordinate increases to the east, the
> second ordinate increases to the north, and the third ordinate increases
> away from the center of the earth.  I don't know what the default
> preference for Proj4 is, so I'd be interested in knowing of the opinions
> of the Proj4 folk on this.
>   
>> Dogmatically, EPSG is correct.  Pragmatically, I believe longitude,
>>     
> latitude, and then height is correct. 
>
> Norm,
>
> PROJ.4 is still "axis orientation ignorant" so it does indeed assume
> long, lat, height for geographic coordinates.  However, the GDAL
> OGRSpatialReference and OGRCoordinateTransformation classes try to have
> some sort of knowledge of SRS axis ordering though this work is not
> really
> complete at this time.
>
> While I hate the misery that the epsg lat/long axis police have caused
> in this world (mostly via more recent OGC specifications) I am not sure
> ignoring the EPSG axis definitions is the right thing to do.  I've got
> a foot on either side of this issue and so I've tried not to take a
> position.
>
> In part I suppose it depends on whether our objective is for the test
> data to address broadly defined coordinate system transformations as
> opposed to being primarily focused on projection transformations.  If
> the former then we ought to expect test apps to honour the axis
> definitions
> of the coordinate system. If the latter then sticking to a default axis
> orientation (perhaps only for geographic coordinates) would be fine.
>
> I can go either way.
>
> Best regards,
>   

-- 
Martin Davis
Senior Technical Architect
Refractions Research, Inc.
(250) 383-3022