Sorry for post crossing again. ...cost prossing? coss prosting, must be mixing up axis order.
On Fri, December 15, 2006 18:08, Daniel Morissette wrote: > The beauty of cross-posting to multiple lists... I just replied to the > osgeo-discuss fork of this thread asking for an update on what happened > at OGC this week and just found my answer here. Lets see whatever Carl Reed from OGC is going to put together officially. I banged into concrete walls talking about x being the horizontal axis and first, y being the vertical axis and second and potentially having a z axis pointing up in coordinates tuples / triples. This will not do as it does not have an urn and does not comply to whatever OGP (Ex-EPSG) does to its coordinate axis order and has not rnu through the process of... > So nobody present at the OGC meeting saw the issue? It's not about > deciding which one is "correct" between x,y, or y,x, or lon,lat, or > lat,lon ... I could not care less as long as pick one and only one and > go with it. Variable axis order based on SRS code like what has been > introduced in WMS 1.3 is the worst possible situation for > interoperability IMNSHO. I am missing out on a practical alternative. If I get this right "we" would need to create a repository with coordinate reference systems that go for x,y(,z) and go "our" own way. This will be a stony way so I propose in my stylish humble way to stick with 1.1.1 as long as we can and undercover try to find that new database. > WMS 1.1.x has been a huge success, widely adopted and deployed because > it was simple... simple to implement a server, and simple to implement a > client... and WMS 1.3 broke that simplicity! Therefore we will ignore 1.3 and mabe help out to make 2.0 be a real solution. > Here ya go... you got me going again... time to stop... Sorry to be a pain. > Daniel And now that everybody is leaving the bunker I will go into the weekend too and abstain from any electronic devices for - say 37.5 hours. That should be enough to forget. Regards, PS: Sorry for being so talkative but locking me up in strange environments makes this happen - the only connection to the world being a fibre cable in the concrete wall... > Arnulf Christl wrote: >> On Wed, December 13, 2006 18:55, Bob Basques wrote: >>> Arnulf Christl wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> if you are aware of anything that might enhance information regarding >>>> the >>>> great Axis Order Confusion that we are faced with in the spatial realm >>>> please feel free to add it to this Wiki page: >>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Axis_Order_Confusion >>>> >>> I did add a little tidbit to this related to 3D. >>> >>> bobb >> >> Thank you so much. I mean - it sounds stupid if I personally thank you >> for >> doing this as it is something that comes naturally from a community of >> which I am just part. My "problem" is that I know that there are quite a >> few negative vibes around regarding what happened to WMS 1.3 with >> respect >> to the axis order (regardless of ommitting SLD) but it seems to be hard >> to >> get those people to voice them yet again. >> >> I have been at (yet another) discussion regarding what OGC is going to >> do >> with respect to changing the axis order in 1.3 and later. It seems like >> they (we?) are going to stick with it. Why that? Because nobody is >> against >> it (here you come in) and it is the "right" way to do it. With respect >> to >> the EPSG definitionn this is actually true. With respect to GeoRSS it is >> actually also true. >> >> Nonetheless I wonder whether it really makes sense to write down >> something >> like (y,x,z) when noting something down including height. It does not >> look >> as stupid if you code it in GeoRSS where height has its own tag "elev". >> Yeah, but what mess is this? >> >> If I am alone with the approach of trying to leave x and y where they >> belong then I will just shut up and thats it. but we are then losing >> contact to the standards body and I don't think this is a good idea. >> >> If you are tired to talk about this publicly you can get me directly to >> rant away but please at least do this as I currently feel sort of stupid >> to have started this discussion (yet again) when it is completely >> irrelevant to everybody. (I know that my hurt feelings are not a >> compelling reason to become active but the prospect of breaking a >> thousand >> public WMS and drop downward omaptiability did not seem to do the >> trick?!) >> >> :-) >> >> Thanks. >> >>>> There is some discussion going as to having to break WMS 1.1.1 (and >>>> WFS >>>> and SFS and probably everything) in order to rectify this problem >>>> which >>>> I >>>> think is the end of the world. Well, ok maybe not quite but it will >>>> make >>>> things stall, so lets be reasonable on this. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> **************** You can't be late until you show up. *************** >>> ************ You never learn anything by doing it right. ************ >>> *** War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left. *** >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > > -- > Daniel Morissette > http://www.mapgears.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking > -- Arnulf Christl http://www.ccgis.de _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
