[Requests] Fwd: Geopackage Digest, Vol 25, Issue 20

Jeff Yutzler jeffy at imagemattersllc.com
Tue Feb 28 15:53:08 EST 2017


Forwarding to Requests to facilitate tracking...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <geopackage-request at lists.opengeospatial.org>
Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:00 PM
Subject: Geopackage Digest, Vol 25, Issue 20
To: geopackage at lists.opengeospatial.org


Send Geopackage mailing list submissions to
        geopackage at lists.opengeospatial.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/geopackage
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        geopackage-request at lists.opengeospatial.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        geopackage-owner at lists.opengeospatial.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Geopackage digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: GeoPackage 30-day comment period is open (Even Rouault)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 22:34:16 +0100
From: Even Rouault <even.rouault at spatialys.com>
To: geopackage at lists.opengeospatial.org, Jeff Yutzler
        <jeffy at imagemattersllc.com>
Subject: Re: [Geopackage] GeoPackage 30-day comment period is open
Message-ID: <3009530.BPX6hNbXPu at even-i700>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

On mardi 7 f?vrier 2017 17:21:05 CET Jeff Yutzler via Geopackage wrote:
> In case you missed it, we have opened a 30-day comment period for
> GeoPackage 1.2.
> More information here:
> http://geopackage.blogspot.com/2017/02/preparing-for-geopackage-12.html

Hi,

A)
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 mentionning 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 consistant with Req 104 and the WKT 2 extension. Or
another option
is to put the same defintion 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.

B)
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.


Even

--
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geopackage/
attachments/20170226/dc8f16a2/attachment-0001.html>

End of Geopackage Digest, Vol 25, Issue 20
******************************************



-- 
Jeff Yutzler
Image Matters LLC <http://www.imagemattersllc.com/>
Mobile: (703) 981-8753
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/requests/attachments/20170228/31aa2b2c/attachment.html>


More information about the Requests mailing list