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

CRS Issues #300

jyutzler opened this issue Feb 28, 2017 · 2 comments

CRS Issues #300

jyutzler opened this issue Feb 28, 2017 · 2 comments


Copy link

jyutzler commented Feb 28, 2017

From Even over email:

I think I might have raised this already, but Req 107 about the epsg:4979 entry for the
elevation extension doesn't play nicely with Req 10 and table 3 that define that the
definition column should contain a WKT OGC CT 01-009 representation of the SRS. There's
no way to define cleanly a 3D geographic CRS in WKT 1 as far as I know.

Table 30 avoids a bit the issue by mentioning that the content of definition for epsg:4979
may be any. It would seem better to me that a fixed value is proposed, for example
'undefined' so as to be consistent with Req 104 and the WKT 2 extension. Or another option
is to put the same definition as epsg:4326 (which is already axis stripped) by just changing the
EPSG code, so

GEOGCS ["WGS 84", DATUM ["World Geodetic System 1984", SPHEROID["WGS 84", 6378137,
298.257223563 , AUTHORITY["EPSG","7030"]], AUTHORITY["EPSG","6326"]],
PRIMEM["Greenwich", 0 , AUTHORITY["EPSG","8901"]], UNIT["degree",
0.017453292519943278, AUTHORITY["EPSG","9102"]], AUTHORITY["EPSG","4979"]

Not sure which option is better, but leaving things unspecified is probably not good.

Table 4 of Req 11 says that any definition can be used for epsg:4326 but test case /base/
core/gpkg_spatial_ref_sys/data_values_default requires a precise definition. Table 4 should
likely be altered.

Copy link
Contributor Author

jyutzler commented Mar 13, 2017

The SWG today approved the change to the ATS (B).

Copy link
Contributor Author

jyutzler commented Mar 14, 2017

Closing this issue because the other half of it is covered as part of #303 and the other half in #304

@jyutzler jyutzler removed this from the 1.2-comment period milestone Mar 29, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet
None yet

No branches or pull requests

1 participant