On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Adam Stylinski <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Frank Warmerdam <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Adam Stylinski <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Like I mentioned in previous posts, other NAD83 geotagged las files >> produce >> > similar issues (for example fayetteville). >> >> Adam, >> >> Where are these coming from? What are they generated with? >> >> You referred to "most of the data on the internet". What sort of >> sampling have you done? >> >> If the problem is very limited then I think it is better to fix >> the producer or work around the issue. If it is truely widespread >> then we might as well buckle under and make our consumer >> more robust. >> >> Best regards, >> -- >> >> ---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- >> 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 >> >> Here is the one I was referring to: > > http://data.capcog.org/Information_Clearinghouse/data/LiDAR/Sample_LiDAR_LAS_File.zip > Many of the listed examples from lastool's compilation of ladar examples > that use NAD83 have a different issue (not particular this one). This is > all I can find that is freely available, anyway. The proprietary data that > we have and I'm currently working with uses WGS84, so I cannot speak for > other sources of data other than that which is available freely on the > internet. > > Here is what getProj4() and getWKT() return for these datasets: > > GetProj4() = +proj=lcc +lat_1=28.38333333333333 +lat_2=30.28333333333334 > +lat > 27.83333333333333 +lon_0=-99 +x_0=1968500 +y_0=13123333.33333333 > +datum=NAD83 > nits=us-ft +no_defs > GetWKT() = COMPD_CS["unknown", > PROJCS["unnamed", > GEOGCS["NAD83", > DATUM["North_American_Datum_1983", > SPHEROID["GRS 1980",6378137,298.2572221010002, > AUTHORITY["EPSG","7019"]], > AUTHORITY["EPSG","6269"]], > PRIMEM["Greenwich",0], > UNIT["degree",0.0174532925199433], > AUTHORITY["EPSG","4269"]], > PROJECTION["Lambert_Conformal_Conic_2SP"], > PARAMETER["standard_parallel_1",28.38333333333333], > PARAMETER["standard_parallel_2",30.28333333333334], > PARAMETER["latitude_of_origin",27.83333333333333], > PARAMETER["central_meridian",-99], > PARAMETER["false_easting",6458320.416666665], > PARAMETER["false_northing",43055469.44444443], > UNIT["US survey foot",0.3048006096012192, > AUTHORITY["EPSG","9003"]], > AUTHORITY["EPSG","32140"]], > VERT_CS["NAVD88 - Geoid03 (Feet)", > VERT_DATUM["unknown",2005], > UNIT[,1, > AUTHORITY["EPSG","9003"]], > AXIS["Up",UP]]] > > When I try to perform these projections with proj4, it gives me > coordinates somewhere in the middle of the pacific. So no, the default > parameters are not zero, but something is making the proj.4 library behave > incorrectly. I apologize for assuming it was the same issue just because > it was the same coordinate system. Still, there is a problem, and your > help on why this is happening would be appreciated. > And that does say +units=us-ft, that was just a copy&paste error.
_______________________________________________ Liblas-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/liblas-devel
