Regarding https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/133#issuecomment-409922969 from @marqh - agreed, I had been looking at it from my somewhat narrowed perspective at EUMETSAT HQ, but you're absolutely right about model data. I'm familiar with many other users who would agree that it's redundant to supply coordinates for all of those.
Regarding https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/133#issuecomment-409924422, I like `either | or` as well - the point is that coordinates can be reconstructed, supplying them for gridded data would be more the edge case IMHO. This is in line with the way the rest of the geospatial community does things. So I would agree with this ticket if as @davidhassell suggests a grid mapping is mandatory if coordinates are not supplied. This way we'd have a guarantee that the data within a CF file could be geolocated. The point is that the user must have some way of reconstructing the positions of the geophysical quantities in space and time. -- 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-410166880
