Thanks George :-)
If anyone else has clarification request or proposal, or would like
change, feedbacks are always welcome.
Martin
Le 11/01/14 00:32, GEORGE PERCIVALL a écrit :
Martin,
Surprisingly, coordinate order is a tricky issue. Your description is well
written.
George
On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:06 AM, Martin Desruisseaux
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello all
I committed a first proposal for an AxesConvention enumeration [1]. This
enumeration is not part of any OGC/ISO standard. It does not provide any new
functionality, but tries to make some common patterns easier to use.
The vast majority of Geographic CRS defined in the EPSG database use the (latitude,
longitude) axis order with longitudes in the [-180 … +180]° range. However many
developers and existing softwares prefer the (longitude, latitude) axis order. This
mismatch occurs so often that it is worth to provide a mechanism telling "use the
CRS as defined in the EPSG database except that axis order shall be (longitude, latitude)
rather than (latitude, longitude)". This is the purpose of the RIGHT_HANDED
enumeration value.
An other common pattern is "use the CRS as defined in the EPSG database except that
the range of longitude values shall be [0 … 360]° instead of [-180 … +180]°". This
is the purpose of the POSITIVE_RANGE enumeration value.
Does anyone has other common patterns that we could add in the AxesConvention
enumeration, or any comment on the currently proposed patterns?
Martin
[1]
https://builds.apache.org/job/sis-jdk7/site/apidocs/org/apache/sis/referencing/cs/AxesConvention.html
George Percivall
[email protected]
http://www.linkedin.com/in/gpercivall
@Percivall on Twitter
+1-301-560-6439
http://www.opengeospatial.org/
OGC -- Making Location Count
