[Proj] Mugnier's columns / old German maps / von Müffling

[Jan Hartmann]

Hello,

I found the posting below on the Proj list (24-7-2004). Prof. Mugnier 
mentions his Internet-columns, but the URLS he mentions do not exist 
anymore. Are they still available?

More in particaular, I am trying to georeference the Tranchot-Map of the 
Rhineland in Germany, surveyed by French ingénieur-géographes under 
Colonel  Tranchot from 1804-1813, and by Prussian Ingenieurgeographen 
under General von Müffling from 1815-1828. Much geodetic information 
about this survey is available in "Rudolf Schmidt, Die Kartenaufnahme 
der Rheinlande durch Tranchot und vond Müffling. Teil I: Geschichte des 
Kartenwerkes und vermessungstechnische Arbeiten, Bonn 1973", but  if 
someone on this list has further information about this map and the way 
it was made, I would very much like to hear about it.

Jan

Dr. J. Hartmann
Department of Geography
University of Amsterdam


Clifford J Mugnier wrote:
 >
 > Maciek,
 >
 > I was surprised to hear of a Transverse Mercator projection on such 
an old
 > topo map of German territory since it was so difficult to compute by 
hand.
 > Remember now, that Gauss was the first to use it in the early 1800s (for
 > the survey of Hannover), and he had a staff of several Ph.D. students 
to do
 > the "grunt" work for him.  Its main purpose (the Gauss-Conform TM), for
 > Gauss was to facilitate the survey computations rather than to be 
used for
 > a cartographic projection.  The subsequent plane-table mapping for
 > cadastral surveying (tax mapping) probably was on the Müffling projection
 > because it was so "easy" to cast under field survey conditions.
 >
 > The most common projections found in old German applications were the
 > "Solnder" (nowadays called the Cassini-Soldner) and the "Müffling."  Both
 > are aphylactic projections, although the Cassini-Soldner is slightly 
closer
 > mathematically to the Transverse Mercator than the Müffling.  The more
 > common name for that projection is the Polyhedric or the "Polyeder."
 >
 > The ellipsoidal Müffling uses the identical mathematics as the
 > two-dimentionsional version of the 3D "Local Space Rectangular" (LSR)
 > coordinate system used in 3D computational photogrammetry.  It is 
(almost)
 > the ellipsoidal equivalent of the gnomonic projection.  ALL aphylactic
 > projections (Müffling/Polyeder, Cassini-Soldner, Bonne, and 
Polyconic) were
 > developed to facilitate drafting in the field for plane table and alidade
 > compilation.  For survey computations, they are awful.  (See my 
comments in
 > my ASPRS column on Hong Kong.)
 >
 > The EXACT ellipsoid parameters and the EXACT number of significant digits
 > published is critical to high-precision applications of geodetic
 > transformations.  Variations abound that are correct for certain 
places for
 > certain eras.  Exactly when a certain set of defining parameters is 
correct
 > has to be discerned from government survey notes and publications.  It is
 > an EXACT science, but it is also remarkably obscure and esoteric.
 >
 > Major General von Müffling was one of the first officers in command 
of the
 > Topographic Engineer Corps of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  (See my 
columns
 > in PE&RS on Austria, Hungary, Poland, etc. for more details.)
 >
 > Clifford J. Mugnier
 > Chief of Geodesy and
 > Associate Director,
 > CENTER FOR GEOINFORMATICS
 > Department of Civil Engineering
 > LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
 > Baton Rouge, LA  70803
 > Voice and Facsimile:  (225) 578-8536
 > ======================================================
 > http://www.ASPRS.org/resources.html
 > http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/mugnier/index.html
 > ======================================================
 >
 >
 > "Paul Kelly" <paul-grass at stjohnspoint.co.uk> wrote:
 >
 >
 >> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Maciek Sieczka wrote:
 >>
 >> [...]
 >>
 >>> As to the datums I tried 3 different ones and I'm not sure which one is
 >>> really suitable here. I believe I had a best result with the first of
 >>> the mentioned below. Though the reprojection result was very similar
 >>> in each case (max 1-2 m difference) I would like to know which one
 >>> is right if somebody can tell me.
 >>>
 >> None of them are "right"; they are all only approximations to the shift
 >> between the two datums. Number 1 is for central West Germany, number 2
 >>
 > for
 >
 >> southern west Germany, and number 3 seems to be general for the whole
 >>
 > area
 >
 >> the potsdam datum is used in. However there is also a more accurate
 >> 7-parameter transformation for all of Germany on the CRS website (and
 >>
 > also
 >
 >> in GRASS).
 >>
 >
 > First I'd like to explain myself. Before I got to understand that 
there are
 > different datum transformation parameters available for Potsdam datum I
 > have
 > had propably accidently selected the "2." mentioned below when setting up
 > the mapset in Grass. After that I got to the
 > http://crs.bkg.bund.de/crseu/crs/descr/eu-countrysel.php?country=DE,
 > understood a bit more and came to conclussion that "1." would be better
 > (not
 > "right" :), ok) in my case - my maps are within 50°20'N - 52°20'N. And
 > after
 > your message I finally noticed different Potsdam datum paramteres 
available
 > in Grass. Briefly that's why I was, in error, reffering to the "2." as to
 > the "GRASS 5.3, datum: potsdam". Sorry for that.
 >
 >
 >>> 1. +towgs84=584.8,67.0,400.3,0.105,0.013,-2.378,10.29
 >>> taken from the
 >>> http://crs.bkg.bund.de/crseu/crs/descr/eu-countrysel.php?country=DE ->
 >>> DE_DHDN / GK_3 -> Transf. -> DE_DHDN (Middle) to ETRS89
 >>>
 >>> 2. +towgs84: 597.1,71.4,412.1,0.894,0.068,-1.563,7.58
 >>> GRASS 5.3, datum: potsdam
 >>>
 >>> 3. +towgs84=606.0,23.0,413.0
 >>> GDAL 1.2.0, potsdam bessel, Potsdam Rauenberg 1950 DHDN
 >>>
 >
 >
 >> So it all depends on which part of Germany your map covers, and e.g. if
 >>
 > it
 >
 >> is not in an area that any of the widely available transformations 
covers
 >> (e.g. former part of Germany that is now in Poland?)
 >>
 >
 > Yes, former part of Germany, now in Poland, circa 50°45'N, 15°30' - 15°
 > 50'E.
 >
 >
 >> then for maximum
 >> accuracy you would have to derive your own transformation using 
locations
 >> of churches as was suggested. But I wouldn't know how to do that...
 >>
 >
 > Then me neither for sure.
 >
 > I've noticed that all the German/Bessel 1841 systems on the CRS site
 > mention slightly different ellipsoid inverse flattening than Grass:
 >
 > Grass 5.3: 299.1528128
 > CRS:        299.15281285
 >
 > Propably not a big difference but how big anyway?
 >
 > One thing more about the projection I've remembered that the guy I 
got the
 > map from mentioned the name "von Müffling". He seemed to know about
 > the cartography even less than me (would you believe it?) but 
according to
 > him the projection was "multilateral projection elaborated by general 
major
 > von Müffling" (my own translation from Polish). I treid a brief search
 > about
 > this general but nothing. Is it telling anything to anybody?
 >
 > Maciek
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > Proj mailing list
 > Proj at xserve.flids.com
 > http://xserve.flids.com/mailman/listinfo/proj
 >
 >