Jan Jezek a écrit :
> You are almost right - but when using ESRI Krovak without the parameters
> like X_SCALE (etc..) it produces CRS with westing southing (!!) directions
> for projected axis.
> (Sorry - I did not express 100% right in my previous post about this).
Damn!! Thanks a lot for your explanation, I missed that part.
But then... in the WKT you posted:
> PROJCS["S-JTSK (Ferro) / Krovak",
> GEOGCS["S-JTSK (Ferro)",
> DATUM["S_JTSK_Ferro",
> SPHEROID["Bessel 1841", 6377397.155, 299.1528128,
> AUTHORITY["EPSG","7004"]],
> AUTHORITY["EPSG","6818"]],
> PRIMEM["Ferro", -17.66666666666667, AUTHORITY["EPSG","8909"]],
> UNIT["degree", 0.017453292519943295],
> AXIS["Longitude", EAST],
> AXIS["Latitude", NORTH],
> AUTHORITY["EPSG","4818"]],
> PROJECTION["Krovak"],
> PARAMETER["latitude_of_center", 49.5],
> PARAMETER["longitude_of_center", 42.5],
> PARAMETER["azimuth", 30.288139722222223],
> PARAMETER["pseudo_standard_parallel_1", 78.5],
> PARAMETER["scale_factor", 0.9999],
> PARAMETER["false_easting", 0.0],
> PARAMETER["false_northing", 0.0],
> UNIT["m", 1.0],
> AXIS["x", EAST],
> AXIS["y", NORTH],
> AUTHORITY["EPSG","2065"]]
The AXIS element are actually lying to us... I just checked in the EPSG database
for code 2065 and found almost exactly the same WKT except for the axis elements
which are AXIS["Southing", SOUTH], AXIS["Westing", WEST].
So in current state, parsing the bogus ESRI's WKT produces the expected result,
but parsing a valid WKT or building the CRS from the EPSG database produces the
wrong result (axes flipped).
The fact that CRS.decode("EPSG:2065") will produce wrong CRS in the current
state of affair seems especially anoying to me. This also break the assumption
of the whole projection package, which assumes that projection "kernel" are
always (EAST,NORTH) oriented (other orientations are handle by affine transform
concatenated to the kernel).
Since (if my understanding is right) the issue in this particular topic is on
ESRI side, I would like to keep the referencing module "right" and try to find
an other way to comply with ESRI behavior, maybe with a "ESRI compatibility"
flag in the WKT parser (or some other way if you have idea).
Is the above approximatively accurate? What do you think?
Martin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help
pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
