[Proj] large difference while projecting utm to utm back and forth

[Thomas Knudsen]

>
> I agree - I don't see that any of the wide field tmerc implementation
> made it into my PROJ.4.  If someone (ideally Gerald) could identify a
> preferred implementation I'd be willing to port it over or apply a
> patch if someone else wants to file a ticket with a proposed change.
>

Frank, I have just been on a journey through my mail archive and have found
a personal email from Gerald with his timing and roundtrip-precision tests
of the different wide field transverse mercator implementations. My
interpretation of his results is that the Engsager implementation sits in
the sweet spot between speed and precision. I will forward the material
(including source code) to your pobox.com address in a few minutes.

/thomas


>
> Best regards,
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
> warmerdam at pobox.com
> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
> and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent
>
> _______________________________________________
> Proj mailing list
> Proj at lists.maptools.org
> http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/proj/attachments/20110216/3078fa5c/attachment.html>