[Qgis-user] Batch convert nonsense-coordinates from DWG?

[Nigel Berjak - General]

Hi Bernd

Yes, I receive CAD files all the time with it being 'georeferenced' but 
actually they sometimes only include a grid overlay with coordinates and 
nothing more. What I do and what I would suggest is importing the entire 
CAD file into a Geopackage or File Geodatabase, then re-georeferencing 
all layers/information within the file (I think you can do it using all 
layers) concurrently to assign the correct coordinates and ensure that 
the correct EPSG/ESRI CRS is assigned.

The other option is to request from the CAD guys a KMZ of the file, 
which they seem to be able to output in the correct location, and rather 
use this. You can then, if they have any attribute data embedded as a 
description field, expand that using the KMZ plugin.

I hope this assists you.

---
Regards,

Nigel Berjak
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

On 2025-06-03 20:31, Bernd Vogelgesang via QGIS-User wrote:
> So now I tried the import with EPSG 5653 and this one seems to work.
> 
> I am working now with geodata for around 15 years, but the CAD scene 
> never runs out of new obstacles for me.
> 
> What the f is EPSG 5653, and most importantly: Why is it it even being 
> used?
> 
> (Fun fact: once a CAD guy told me, after me complaining about his data 
> having just some local cartesian coordinates and no official CRS, that 
> his software would run much slower, the higher the coordinate numbers 
> were, so working with short local coordinates was his way to be able to 
> work at all.
> Now these other guys just add another 2 digits? Obviously trying to 
> evade work!)
> 
> Did I already mention that I very much dislike CAD and its seemlingly 
> not existing philosophy behind it.
> 
> Thanks for the hints!
> 
> Bernd
> Am 03.06.25 um 17:10 schrieb Jürgen E. Fischer via QGIS-User:
>> Moin Bernd,
>> 
>> On Tue, 03. Jun 2025 at 16:25:54 +0200, Bernd Vogelgesang via 
>> QGIS-User wrote:
>>> Actually, the data should be in EPSG 25833, but somehow they managed 
>>> to
>>> scramble the x-values by adding 33 before the otherwise correct 
>>> coordinates.
>> 
>> So EPSG:5650?
>> 
>> 
>> Jürgen
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> QGIS-User mailing list
>> QGIS-User at lists.osgeo.org
>> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user