See <http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astrometry/optical-IR-prod/ucac>
that seems to be the same info, right on USNO's website.

I found the lost discussion I mentioned earlier (it was on another group, for 
an asteroid astrometry software).  Here it is, re-shuffled to top-down order, 
with names/addresses edited: 


> > From: "Bob" 
> >
> > I received a copy of UCAC3 today from USNO. So apparently distribution
> > is well underway.


> "Dave"  a écrit :
> >
> > That is good to know.
> >
> > Of course the real advantages of UCAC3 will not be available until
> > software authors (such as
> > Herbert) have changed their program so that it can read UCAC3. Until
> > that occurs, you won't be able
> > to 'use' the DVD unless you write your own programs to access the
> > data. [In that context, I expect
> > an announcement in the next few days concerning the manner in which
> > UCAC3 stars are to be
> > 'officially' identified - which is different to that set out in the
> > Readme file.]


> From: "Marc" 
> 
> Is the answer here :
> http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astrometry/optical-IR-prod/ucac  ?


---  "Dave"  wrote:
>
> As I indicated the other day, there has been an 'announcement about the 
> official star numbering for 
> stars in UCAC3. It is indeed on the UCAC3 web page (as linked below) in the 
> opening text.  It  states:
> 
> ************
> UCAC3 official star numbers
> 
> While the MPOS number (last column on each data record) mainly provides a 
> means to identify known 
> high proper motion stars, the primary star identification number should look 
> like:
> 
> 3UCzzz-nnnnnn
> 
> The "3UC" is constant and indicates the UCAC3 catalog. The 3 digit "zzz" 
> number is the zone the star 
> is in, followed by a dash and a 6 digit number which is the record number of 
> the star on that zone. 
> Thus the official designation of the star 42 in zone 7 would be 3UC007-000042.
> **********
> 
> Users of Vizier will note that this numeration is now used there for UCAC3.
> 
> Dave


"Dave" is the same person who wrote the paragraph I copied earlier from MPML.  
I'm not sure how he knew that the new designation format would be different 
from the readme file. 

-John





----- Original Message ----
> From: Sander Pool <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:48:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [skychart-discussion] UCAC3 identifier
> 
> 
> Thanks John for forwarding that link. This is the crucial paragraph:
> 
> "
> 
> *New UCAC-3 designation scheme: *UCAC-3 had two designation schemes, but 
> a third has been settled upon: '3UC', followed by a zone number from 1 
> (stars between declinations -90 to -89.5) to 360 (stars between decs 
> +89.5 to +90), followed by a six-digit number giving the order of that 
> star within that declination zone. For example, '3UC314-159265' would be 
> the 159265th star in zone 314 (the zone covering declinations +66.5 to +67).
> 
> '3UC' was used because '3U' had been taken by another astronomical 
> catalogue.
> "
> 
> It doesn't really say who settled this. It would be nice to see a 
> confirmation from the USNO especially because it's not consistent with 
> UCAC2.
> 
>     Sander
> 
> John Mahony wrote:
> >  
> >
> > There's been much discussion on MPML about UCAC3, and I recall 
> > specifically a discussion about some confusion about ID numbers. 
> > Unfortunately since the yahoogroups message search feature has been 
> > broken for over 6 months now, I can't seem to find it, but I'll keep 
> > looking. I did find one paragraph that might be useful, however:
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > "A final bit of information that is appropriate to share, as it is not 
> > something
> > most will have
> > expected. The raw UCAC data at USNO is sorted entirely by declination. 
> > RA is not
> > used in any way in
> > the sort, so that sequentially numbered stars can have RA's differing 
> > by up to
> > +/-12hrs in RA. The
> > MPOS number (field 37 of the UCAC3 record) is the sequential number 
> > allocated to
> > the stars in the
> > raw data on the basis of this sort (and there are about 140 million 
> > stars in
> > this dataset, compared
> > to the 100 million in UCAC3). The data is placed into the declination 
> > bands and
> > sorted by RA
> > _solely_ for the purpose of creating the public catalogue."
> > ---------------------------------------------
> >
> > But I don't think that was part of the specific discussion about ID 
> > numbers.
> >
> > Also, Bill Grey (Project Pluto/ Guide8) has some source code available 
> > for accessing the catalog:
> > 
> > >
> >
> > I'm not a programmer so I didn't look very close there at first, but 
> > now I see he also has some info on the designation confusion (see the 
> > last few paragraphs).
> >
> > -John
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Patrick Chevalley >
> > >
> > > From what I understand I already found tree different way to 
> > identify an UCAC3
> > > star :-(
> > > We need to clarify this point before to build a search index.
> > >
> > > From the UCAC3 readme 3i) : 
> > http://ad.usno.navy.mil/ucac/readme_u3.html 
> > 
> > > 1- the last 4 bytes of the zone files contain the MPOS number. This 
> > number spans
> > > the range of 3 to 140051297
> > > 2- ID = n0 + running star number in zone z "3UCAC100200300". n0 is 
> > the largest
> > > star ID number of the previous zone. The star ID number runs from 
> > 000000001 to
> > > 100766420.
> > >
> > > From Vizier Note (1): 
> > http://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/Cat?I/315#sRM3.1 
> > 
> > > 3- 3UC"zzz-nnnnnnn", where zzz is the zone number and nnnnnn a 
> > 6-digit running
> > > number in the zone. "3UC180-000007"
> > >
> > > Can someone with better english can clarify the UCAC3 readme 3i). it 
> > is quite
> > > confuse for me.
> > >
> > > Also, do anyone know which identifier will be used the most 
> > frequently by people
> > > using UCAC2 now? by IOTA? for SN chart?
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 


      

Reply via email to