[Proj4j] ESPG:28992

[Martin Davis]

Some more information on this issue.

The addition of the towgs84 parameter happened last August, as a result of
this ticket:

http://trac.osgeo.org/proj/ticket/96

The SVN version of EPSG:28992 has the +towgs parameter, whereas the version
in the PROJ.4 distro archive does not.

Apparently this change was due to user demand, for what is a apparently a
more accurate definition.  If you search for "EPSG:28992" you'll find lots
of discussion about this.  This blog post seems to be authoritative on the
subject:

http://oegeo.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/note-to-self-the-one-and-only-rd-projection-string/

Out of curiousity, what are the issues that you're seeing with this new
definition?


On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:16 AM, <jeffery.fitzgerald at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> I noticed that the epsg file that ships with proj4j has a different entry
> for ESPG:28992 than I have seen in proj.
>
> proj4j epsg
> # Amersfoort / RD New
> <28992> +proj=sterea +lat_0=52.15616055555555 +lon_0=5.38763888888889
> +k=0.9999079 +x_0=155000 +y_0=463000 +ellps=bessel
> +towgs84=565.417,50.3319,465.552,-0.398957,0.343988,-1.8774,4.0725 +units=m
> +no_defs <>
>
> gdal epsg
> # Amersfoort / RD New
> <28992> +proj=sterea +lat_0=52.15616055555555 +lon_0=5.38763888888889
> +k=0.9999079 +x_0=155000 +y_0=463000 +ellps=bessel +units=m +no_defs <>
>
> Does anyone know why? It was causing me some trouble until I removed the
> towgs84.
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/proj4j/attachments/20120109/faa3d966/attachment.html