On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:38 AM, Ben Caradoc-Davies
wrote:
> 99 seems like the front-runner at this stage. I have a couple of
> concerns:
>
> (1) As I recall, Oracle SRIDs are often not the same as EPSG codes.
> While 99 looks better at this stage, an official "not applicable"
> EPSG code w
99 seems like the front-runner at this stage. I have a couple of
concerns:
(1) As I recall, Oracle SRIDs are often not the same as EPSG codes.
While 99 looks better at this stage, an official "not applicable"
EPSG code would be even better.
(2) Oracle use this for "unknown SRID", which
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Andrea Aime
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Alessio Fabiani
> wrote:
>> Oracle Spatial assigns 99 srid code to unknown CRS as far as I know;
>> it's ugly but already used by someone as a convention.
>
> I see. Well, it's ugly but if it's going to g
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Alessio Fabiani
wrote:
> Oracle Spatial assigns 99 srid code to unknown CRS as far as I know;
> it's ugly but already used by someone as a convention.
I see. Well, it's ugly but if it's going to get positive votes (or at
least no negatives) I'm all for it
Ch
Oracle Spatial assigns 99 srid code to unknown CRS as far as I know;
it's ugly but already used by someone as a convention.
---
Ing. Alessio Fabiani
Founder / CTO GeoSolutions S.A.S.
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massa
I am fine with all these options but my preference is the same as Andreas.
That is:
1. EPSG:0
2. EPSG:-1
3. EPSG:9
If epsg does map 0 to some other crs we can always revisit that later and
change the definition in the next major release.
2c.
-Justin
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Andrea
