Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

VerticalCRS::_isEquivalentTo(): do not consider VerticalCRS and DerivedVerticalCRS as equivalent #3408

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 21, 2022

Conversation

rouault
Copy link
Member

@rouault rouault commented Oct 21, 2022

This cause incorrect result when transforming from/to a DerivedVerticalCRS or a CompoundCRS made of a DerivedVerticalCRS

With that fix:

$ echo 46.9524055555556 7.43958333333333 400 | cs2cs -d 12 EPSG:4979 "$(cat test.wkt)"
46.953728423809	7.440534369109 361.014348853429

Fixes #3407

…edVerticalCRS as equivalent

This cause incorrect result when transforming from/to a
DerivedVerticalCRS or a CompoundCRS made of a DerivedVerticalCRS

With that fix:
```
$ echo 46.9524055555556 7.43958333333333 400 | cs2cs -d 12 EPSG:4979 "$(cat test.wkt)"
46.953728423809	7.440534369109 361.014348853429
```

Fixes OSGeo#3407
@rouault rouault merged commit 4121845 into OSGeo:master Oct 21, 2022
github-actions bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2022
VerticalCRS::_isEquivalentTo(): do not consider VerticalCRS and DerivedVerticalCRS as equivalent
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Bad transformation using a derived vertical CRS with base vertical that has a geoid
1 participant