in response to https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/133#issuecomment-408439318
@erget I don't think that this is sufficient. The satellite case with FOVs and FORs only represents a subset of the problem cases here. By mandating the provision of latitude and longitude coordinates and providing the grid mapping definition capability, CF is forcing data producers to define detailed information about position twice in many cases. For example, a simple model grid using the UK's OSGB Transverse Mercator CRS is fully defined by the OSGB parameters, a 1D array of eastings and a 1D array of northings. However, to meet the CF conformance requirements, then a 2D array of latitudes and a 2D array of longitudes must be provided. If only 1 data variable is provided at the surface, a common use case, then this ~triples the size of the file. Pretty much any spatially aware application would be able to use the OSGB coordinates and CRS definition to geo-locate this data set, so the latitude and longitude arrays are really not required. I think it is a better approach to remove the mandate that latitude and longitude values will always exist within the file. -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/133#issuecomment-409922969
