For me LAMB1 and UTM31RGF93 are both considered as being on Geoid in the new database. So the altitude from input is just transferred to the output.
So I think the result from 9.2 version is correct in terms of Z management. But it’s only from my understanding… Alain > Le 1 juin 2023 à 15:54, Nicolas Bellaiche <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Hi all, > > > I am still puzzled by the difference between the old syntax +init= and the > new syntax. I just rebuilt the last release 9.2.1 and tested with it to make > sure it's not a bug already fixed. > > 1) Example where the grid shift is not taken into account with the new > syntax. (it's correct with +init=) > > 1.a) NEW SYNTAX: z not correct (grid shift not used) > > echo 600000.00000000 300097.53400000 0.00000000 | ./bin/cs2cs IGNF:LAMB1 > +to IGNF:UTM31RGF93 > 452845.19 5583309.40 0.00 > > 1.b) OLD SYNTAX: z correct: > > echo 600000.00000000 300097.53400000 0.00000000 | ./bin/cs2cs > +init=IGNF:LAMB1 +to +init=IGNF:UTM31RGF93 > 452845.19 5583309.40 43.64 > > > > 2) Example where the old syntax gives a wrong result while the new syntax > works: > > 2.a) OLD SYNTAX from cartographic to geocentric coordinates / result is wrong > > echo 652760.737 7033791.243 43.642 | PROJ_DEBUG=3 ./bin/cs2cs > +init=IGNF:LAMB93 +to +init=IGNF:RGF93 > 4070355.05 166080.07 4891332.24 > > > 2.b) NEW SYNTAX from cartographic to geocentric coordinates / result is > correct > > echo 652760.737 7033791.243 43.642 | PROJ_DEBUG=3 ./bin/cs2cs IGNF:LAMB93 +to > IGNF:RGF93 > 4070327.25 166078.93 4891298.61 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PROJ mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
_______________________________________________ PROJ mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
