From: Rueben S. <r_j...@ya...> - 2004-02-24 05:38:44
|
To Martin, Some comments below. On Mon, 2004-02-23 at 07:08, Martin Desruisseaux wrote: > Rueben Schulz a =E9crit : >=20 > > Oblique_Stereographic now called Oblique_Stereographic_USGS > > Oblique_Stereographic_EPSG now called Oblique_Stereographic >=20 > Right. Yours Javadoc in Sterographic.java also gives nice tip. Actually= ,=20 > since ESRI's ArcGIS 8.x product use the following names: >=20 > "Stereographic" for "Oblique_Stereographic_USGS" > "Double Stereographic" for "Oblique_Stereographic" >=20 >=20 > I suggest to adopts ESRI's naming instead of using our own.=20 > "Oblique_Stereographic" would be the EPSG alias for "Double=20 > Stereographic". Alias are allowed at least in the new GeoAPI. >=20 > Projection Method #1: > authority=3D"EPSG" name=3D"Oblique_Stereographic" > authority=3D"ESRI" name=3D"Double Stereographic" >=20 >=20 > Projection Method #2: > authority=3D"ESRI" name=3D"Stereographic" >=20 >=20 > So for now lets rename "Oblique_Stereographic_USGS" as "Stereographic"=20 > and add a @task TODO tag saying that this name should be declared as=20 > ESRI name, and ESRI name "Double Stereographic" should be added to the=20 > other projection. I will imlements alias when I will performs the CTS=20 > refactoring. Once again, you came up with the simple solution that I did not see. Thank you. Please change the java docs when you make the name change. I just changed the name in the cts tutorial keyword table. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > > Polar_Stereographic_EPSG renamed Polar_Stereographic_Series (This is = the > > equation given by the epsg, but it calculates the same values as the > > Polar_Stereographic (using itteration). I decided that it should have= a > > functional name instead). Perhaps this class should be removed ? >=20 > The functional name is nice. Maybe you already explained that, I don't=20 > remember: is there any advantage in one implementation instead of the=20 > other? (speed? accuracy? rubusteness to points far away?). If there is=20 > some advantages in one implementation over the other, it would be nice=20 > to said that in the Javadoc. We can decide later which one we keep. >=20 I did the series implementation out of curiosity (it only over-rides the inverseTransformNormalized(), so does not take up too much room). The only benefit is a bit of speed at the expense of a bit of accuracy. The iteration method is from proj4 and therefor better tested.=20 >=20 >=20 > > Added a rounding error check to > > ObliqueStereographic.EPSG::inverseTransformNormalized (testing found > > this one). > >=20 > > Fixed PolarStereographic so sign of latitudeTrueScale is not changed > > (added Math.abs elsewhere). This was done because I noticed that a > > projection with a latOfOrigin of -90 was given a latitudeTrueScale of= 90 > > (this is ok for the equations, but annoying when output in the wkt). > >=20 > > Changed the default value of latitudeTrueScale so it is now decided i= n > > PolarStereographic (allows a latitudeTrueScale of -90 for south pole = and > > 90 for north pole). >=20 > Nice, thank. >=20 >=20 > > Added ObliqueStereographic.EPSG2 (should be temporary). > >=20 > > Problems are: > >=20 > > If you look at the testScript, you will see my new tests at the botto= m. > > As far as I know (from epsg correspondence from an employee at ESRI) > > ESRI's "double stereographic" is the same as what the epsg calls the > > oblique stereographic. Unfortunately this is not always the case (7 > > errors + some weird stuff happening with a south polar test). Notes > > about this are in the comments in the testScript. > >=20 > > I dusted off my original oblique stereographic implementation (EPSG2)= to > > test these points. It gives the same answers as the EPSG class (plus > > some extra errors with (0, 90) which I do not plan on fixing). EPSG2 = was > > based directly off the equations given by the epsg (very messy), so t= his > > gives me some hope that we are correct. Plus I have confidence in the > > equations from libproj (Gerald Evenden). But, without further input f= rom > > esri, I am not sure who is wrong (I usually find it best to assume I = am > > wrong unless I have good evidence otherwise). I have ordered "The > > Stereographic Double Projection" , a 1977 technical report from the > > University of New Brunswick, and will pursue this further when this > > arrives. >=20 > I have the same approach: when I found discrepancy, I tend to suspect=20 > myself first. This is usually the best thing to do. But I also realized= =20 > that commercial software are inaccurate more often then we believe. For= =20 > example they were an article a few years ago in some scientific=20 > newspaper about the danger of relying to blindly on the =B4contour=A1=20 > function in Matlab. Lets see when you will have yours technical reports. Yes, the reason that I usually use arcInfo for creating test points (other than it being available) is that it is old and well used/tested. There are many bugs still in ArcGIS 8.x and I suspect that I uncovered one. However there is still a good chance that the problem was my fault, so I will need to look into this further. >=20 > Martin. >=20 >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. > Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with > a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id438&op=3Dclick > _______________________________________________ > Geotools-devel mailing list > Geo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel |