How can users participate in additions to the current GeoTIFF spec leading to the next official specification?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

How can users participate in additions to the current GeoTIFF spec leading to the next official specification?

Gail-2

As a member of the GeoTIFF user community, I am wondering how the next version of GeoTIFF will be adopted.

If the plan is not to stop at v1.0, how can users participate in the adoption of standard geokeys for the next version of the GeoTIFF spec?

 

I have seen several threads related to the use of GeoTIFF to store DEMs. In fact one of them was mine!

It seems that GeoTIFF is an ideal format for representing DEMs, but currently it has some shortcomings

unless non-standard private keys are used. The use of private keys limits the general utility of storing data this way.

 

We are using 4 private keys in the 32000 - 33000 range to tag values for overall absolute horizontal accuracy, absolute vertical accuracy, relative horizontal accuracy and relative vertical accuracy for a DEM stored as GeoTIFF. These are the same values stored in a DTED format file as defined in MIL-PRF-89020B, "PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION DIGITAL TERRAIN ELEVATION DATA (DTED)" http://earth-info.nga.mil/publications/specs/printed/89020B/89020B.pdf

(See section 6.4.1 a, b, c, d on page 37).

 

We are interested in participating in the process which could lead to having these 4 keys officially adopted as part of the new spec.

 

We have seen a draft spec calling itself version 1.5 which may have originated at JPL. But still this spec is incomplete, having provided for only 2 accuracy values.

 

Hopefully, others trying to store DEMs in GeoTIFF format will express a similar interest in the additions needed to establish a standard set of geokeys for easy interchange of DEM data.

 

Best regards,

Gail Nagle

BAE Systems

San Diego

 


_______________________________________________
Geotiff mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/geotiff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How can users participate in additions to the current GeoTIFF spec leading to the next official specification?

Frank Warmerdam
On 11/7/05, Nagle, Gail A (US SSA) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As a member of the GeoTIFF user community, I am wondering how the next
> version of GeoTIFF will be adopted.

Gail,

The community standards group at NASA has asked me to submit
GeoTIFF 1.0 through their process.  This would presumably give
a mechanism to later update the specification.

I have been actually quite slack on doing the work to bundle up the
spec and clean it up a bit for them.  Is there anyone else who might
be interested in doing such a task, perhaps with some feedback from
me and others on the list?

I suspect this NASA community standards process is the best way
to get the GeoTIFF spec moving again.

I don't know too much about the GeoTIFF 1.5 proposal floated
out of JPL.

Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, [hidden email]
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent

_______________________________________________
Geotiff mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/geotiff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How can users participate in additions to the current GeoTIFF spec leading to the next official specification?

Niles Ritter
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 19:04 -0500, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> On 11/7/05, Nagle, Gail A (US SSA) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > As a member of the GeoTIFF user community, I am wondering how the next
> > version of GeoTIFF will be adopted.
>
> Gail,
>
> The community standards group at NASA has asked me to submit
> GeoTIFF 1.0 through their process.  This would presumably give
> a mechanism to later update the specification.

I would venture to guess that POSC and EPSG are interested parties
as well, given that the codes are part of their specification.
Wonder if Roger Lott is still around...

> I don't know too much about the GeoTIFF 1.5 proposal floated
> out of JPL.

I vaguely recall putting together an interim proposal that mostly
were fixes, and some suggestions for capture accuracy ellipsoids
and the like. A request for discussion I put out way back in 2000
proposed discussing GeoKeys for data interpretation (e.g not all
pixels are electromagnetic amplitudes, but could be elevation, etc),
vertical datum, refreshing the EPSG database, etc.  Some of the
other 2.0 items were, in retrospect, ad-hoc things not worth
pursuing that we cooked up at JPL, and some had to do with making
GeoTIFF more friendly to facilitating the OpenGIS web map server
interface specs.

--
Niles Ritter <[hidden email]>

_______________________________________________
Geotiff mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/geotiff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How can users participate in additions to the current GeoTIFF spec leading to the next official specification?

danieldenk
What's the story behind the multi-layered data that can be allowed in Geotiff 2.0? The NASA project (JPL?) that I read about, I assumed, was making this a capability?
 
I can only imagine what can be done with multi-layered Geotiffs. The GIS serves as the glue, while the imagery 'product' can serve as the 'database'. Not to mention, I gather that registrations would be interestingly more accurate within datasets, layer to layer - or so one would hope that this would be the workflow or approach toward building multiple-layered / multi-informational datasets.
 
The caveat however, is that no one in the compression market seems to be in key with multiple-layered / multi-informational sets such as I describe. But it would make for a very well-rounded provision for most who are providing data to clients, and when those clients specify a range of data that would otherwise have to be delivered per set and not as an all-in-one solution.
 
Just some thoughts... Not positive if it applies here.
 

 
On 11/17/05, Niles Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 19:04 -0500, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> On 11/7/05, Nagle, Gail A (US SSA) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > As a member of the GeoTIFF user community, I am wondering how the next
> > version of GeoTIFF will be adopted.
>
> Gail,
>
> The community standards group at NASA has asked me to submit
> GeoTIFF 1.0 through their process.  This would presumably give
> a mechanism to later update the specification.

I would venture to guess that POSC and EPSG are interested parties
as well, given that the codes are part of their specification.
Wonder if Roger Lott is still around...

> I don't know too much about the GeoTIFF 1.5 proposal floated
> out of JPL.

I vaguely recall putting together an interim proposal that mostly
were fixes, and some suggestions for capture accuracy ellipsoids
and the like. A request for discussion I put out way back in 2000
proposed discussing GeoKeys for data interpretation (e.g not all
pixels are electromagnetic amplitudes, but could be elevation, etc),
vertical datum, refreshing the EPSG database, etc.  Some of the
other 2.0 items were, in retrospect, ad-hoc things not worth
pursuing that we cooked up at JPL, and some had to do with making
GeoTIFF more friendly to facilitating the OpenGIS web map server
interface specs.

--
Niles Ritter <[hidden email]>

_______________________________________________
Geotiff mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/geotiff


_______________________________________________
Geotiff mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/geotiff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How can users participate in additions to the current GeoTIFF spec leading to the next official specification?

Frank Warmerdam
On 11/18/05, Daniel Denk <[hidden email]> wrote:
> What's the story behind the multi-layered data that can be allowed in
> Geotiff 2.0? The NASA project (JPL?) that I read about, I assumed, was
> making this a capability?

Daniel,

Where do you see the stuff about multi-layers GeoTIFF 2.0 files?

Is this multi-layers in the sense of HDF or netCDF where there
can be a bunch of different products all in one file?

Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, [hidden email]
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent

_______________________________________________
Geotiff mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/geotiff