Hi Paul, thanks for your patience and the explanations!
n Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Paul Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: > I would suggest the attached patch to solve both problems (taking into > account Helena's comments that NAD83 HARN should be separate). > > Paul I have now submitted the changes along with the addition of some code comments as per your emails in: https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/changeset/68308 Hope I got it right! If yes, I'll backport that. Now I have recompiled trunk and made a new test with SIRGAS2000 (seems to be an interesting test case besides Krovak): grass71 -c epsg:4674 ~/grassdata/SIRGAS2000 GRASS 7.1.svn (SIRGAS2000):~ > g.proj -w PROJCS["SIRGAS 2000", GEOGCS["grs80", DATUM["Sistema_de_Referencia_Geocentrico_para_las_AmericaS_2000", SPHEROID["Geodetic_Reference_System_1980",6378137,298.257222101]], PRIMEM["Greenwich",0], UNIT["degree",0.0174532925199433]]] ... which still differs from ... GRASS 7.1.svn (SIRGAS2000):~ > testepsg epsg:4674 Validate Succeeds. WKT[epsg:4674] = GEOGCS["SIRGAS 2000", DATUM["Sistema_de_Referencia_Geocentrico_para_las_AmericaS_2000", SPHEROID["GRS 1980",6378137,298.257222101, AUTHORITY["EPSG","7019"]], TOWGS84[0,0,0,0,0,0,0], AUTHORITY["EPSG","6674"]], PRIMEM["Greenwich",0, AUTHORITY["EPSG","8901"]], UNIT["degree",0.0174532925199433, AUTHORITY["EPSG","9122"]], AUTHORITY["EPSG","4674"]] ... The main difference is that GRASS actually generates it as PROJCS while GDAL generates it as GEOGCS. Hence a reverse test of the g.proj output checked in testepsg fails at time. thanks Markus _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
