Folks, I have no problem with EPSG code 3857 as a PCS in GeoTIFF files. It is widely accepted that any EPSG PCS is acceptable there.
What is less clear to me is the most appropriate formulation of Web Mercator in WKT. Potentially, we could move to encoding semi_major and semi_minor in the projection parameters as overrides, and then translate to the ESRI format and back in our morphing code. Mike, if we do incorporate your patch, I think we should also consider ways of recognising some of the other variations. Best regards, Frank On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Stefano Iacovella < [email protected]> wrote: > > 2013/8/29 Even Rouault <[email protected]> > >> My main question is : how sure are we about the projection name >> "Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere" to be the appropriate one for "standard" WKT >> ? Is >> there some reference from that ? The fact that ESRI uses it doesn't make >> it >> necesserarily a standard (although it can serve as a base if there's no >> alternative). >> > > According to http://epsg-registry.org/, not an ISO standard but quite a > de facto standard, EPSG:3857 is "WGS 84 / Pseudo-Mercator " > > Kind Regards, > > Stefano > --------------------------------------------------- > 41.95581N 12.52854E > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/stefanoiacovella > > http://twitter.com/#!/Iacovellas > > _______________________________________________ > gdal-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev > -- ---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, [email protected] light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Software Developer
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
