Kerstin,

The difference between "spherical" and the newer "cartesian" calculation is
that Pro applies a "scaling factor" to the "cartesian" value to get closer
to the real "spherical" value. Some versions ago the spherical method was
_the_ method, but cartesian was added for just this case.

What you need to understand, is that a calculated (cartesian) area value for
a polygon in a specific projection is only valid for that projection. If you
reproject the data to another projection, the very same calculation will
render a different (cartesian) value. That is what the "spherical" approach
is addressing, trying to generate a common value regardless of projection.

However, as I understand it, the "spherical" approach calculates the scaling
factor from the polygon mid point (or centroid?), and applies this to the
whole polygon. This is off course going to be inaccurate for larger
polygons, but for smaller polygons (like cadastres and smaller counties)
this should be just fine.

ArcView may only have the cartesian version, hence the difference and
similarity you experience.

Best regards/Med venlig hilsen
Lars V. Nielsen
GisPro, Denmark
http://www.gispro.dk/

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 11:49 AM
Subject: MI-L Different area calculation in MapInfo and ArcView


Hi,

I have problems with the different area calculation in MapInfo and ArcView.
The data is an import file from ArcView. If I calculate the area of polygons
in MapInfo with
SphericalArea function it is more than 1 % smaller than the one in ArcView.
The function
CartesianArea in MapInfo returns a more similar area calculation to the one
in ArcView ?
Does anybody has experience ? The projection is Gauss-Krueger.

Thank's for help in advance.

Kerstin


---------------------------------------------------------------------
List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com |
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message number: 17921

Reply via email to