"standards" process?

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

"standards" process?

Rick Brownrigg-2
In both libgeotiff (and also embedded in GDAL),  there appears to be a "canonical" encoding for the various supported projections. Can anyone comment on how those standards (or conventions perhaps) came to be, and more importantly, what the process might be for extending them?

I have commented here before that I believe the convention for polar stereographic is not quite correct (link below), and am further interested in seeing support added what proj4 calls the "General Oblique Transformation" (proj=ob_tran) added.  I'm prepared to provide a fix for the former (assuming everyone/anyone agrees its a bug), and a proposal for the later, but how best to proceed?

http://lists.maptools.org/pipermail/geotiff/2009-April/000559.html

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

Re: "standards" process?

Frank Warmerdam
[hidden email] wrote:
> In both libgeotiff (and also embedded in GDAL),  there appears to be a
> "canonical" encoding for the various supported projections. Can anyone
> comment on how those standards (or conventions perhaps) came to be, and more
> importantly, what the process might be for extending them?

Rick,

During the original GeoTIFF development effort there was work to
collect sample files of various proections.  I took a bunch of those
and attempted to document the expected formulation of the different
projections at:

   http://www.remotesensing.org/geotiff/proj_list

There were really my own claim on canonical.

> I have commented here before that I believe the convention for polar
> stereographic is not quite correct (link below), and am further interested
> in seeing support added what proj4 calls the "General Oblique
> Transformation" (proj=ob_tran) added.  I'm prepared to provide a fix for the
> former (assuming everyone/anyone agrees its a bug), and a proposal for the
> later, but how best to proceed?
>
> http://lists.maptools.org/pipermail/geotiff/2009-April/000559.html

I would encourage you to file a ticket on each issue, with a solution
at:

   http://geotiff.osgeo.org/

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