Is that limitation actually built into GDAL? Because 2-point .map files are not uncommon, and so long as the two points are both different in both axes, then there should be no reason why a 3rd point in required (especially in UTM).
Cheers, Nik. On 12/11/2012, at 6:13 PM, Jean-Claude Repetto <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/11/2012 05:02, Nik Sands wrote: >> >> Please help me figure out why the two sets of .map files behave so >> differently. In particular, how can I get a spatial reference system for >> the failing .map files? >> (Content of two example files are below. First one is OK, second one fails. >> Let me know if I can provide any further information.) > > Hi, > I think it is because the second calibration file has only two > calibration points. Three points are probably necessary. > > Jean-Claude > > _______________________________________________ > gdal-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
