[Proj4j] ESPG:28992

[jeff fitzgerald]

I believe the problem is due to the fact that in the constructor for
BasicCoordinateTransform, doDatumTransform gets set to true when I'm using
EPSG:4326 and EPSG:28992. Since I'm already starting with unprojected
coordinates, am I correct in thinking that that operation is not necessary?

When I set the flag in the debugger to false, and
BasicCoordinateTransform.datumTransform is not run, I get values I would
expect (x = 155000.0000076025 y = 463000.00004944694).

Fitz

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Gertjan Idema <g.idema at zonnet.nl> wrote:

> **
> I haven't seen this, but then I haven't used proj4j for a while.
> The result you give for proj4j is definitely wrong. Any valid EPSG:28992
> coordinate has x<y .
>
> Gertjan
>
>
> On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 09:09 -0400, jeff fitzgerald wrote:
>
> Hey Martin,
>
> There just seems to be a big discrepancy for me between proj and proj4j.
>
> Using the string with the tows84 method and 5.387638889,52.156160556 as my
> test point,
> - Proj gives me 154976.16420640881,463086.51164757559
> - proj4j gives me x = 4761867.817294979 y = 2527483.7229957823
>
> Does anyone else get similar results?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Fitz
>
>  On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Martin Davis <mtnclimb at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Proj4j mailing list
> Proj4j at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/proj4j
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Proj4j mailing listProj4j at lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/proj4j
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Proj4j mailing list
> Proj4j at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/proj4j
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/proj4j/attachments/20120111/982483ec/attachment.html