| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Database: register Canadian provincial horizontal shift grids
|
|
Database: reference GDA94_GDA2020_conformal_christmas_island.gsb and …
|
|
normalizeForVisualization() and other methods applying on a ProjectedCRS: do not mess the derivingConversion object of the original object (fixes #1736)
|
|
not mess the derivingConversion object of the original object (fixes #1736)
normalizeForVisualization(), promoteTo3D(), demoteTo2D(), alterGeodeticCRS(),
alterCSLinearUnit() and alterParametersLinearUnit() all used the object
returned by derivingConversionRef() to create a new ProjectedCRS. While doing
so, this caused the derivingConversion of the original object to have its
targetCRS set to the object returned by normalizeForVisualization() and similar.
If that object died, then the weak pointer would be reset, and the original
ProjectedCRS() has now its derivingConversionRef()->targetCRS() nullptr
So bottom line is use derivingConversion() for anything that is not pure
reading !!!
This is confirmed to be the fix for the QGIS scenario in
https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/issues/30569#issuecomment-540060919
In QGIS use case, the issue arised when using a projected CRS with a non-GIS
friendly axis (that is where normalizeForVisualization() created a new projectedCRS)
|
|
compoundCRS is the same as the target geogCRS
|
|
overriding CRS on a InverseCoordinateOperation (could be related to #1736)
|
|
No functional change intended (except a likely minor correction/improvement in get_next_non_whatever_unit in the PJ_INV case where the iteration should start at step-1)
|
|
|
|
GDA94_GDA2020_conformal_christmas_island.gsb
Related to https://github.com/OSGeo/proj-datumgrid/pull/62
|
|
proj-datumgrid
|
|
Counterpart of https://github.com/OSGeo/proj-datumgrid/pull/61
Fixes #202
|
|
locations that require TLS/SSL, however the ssl module in Python is not available.'
|
|
Doc: configure the 'Edit on GitHub' button
|
|
proj_create_conversion_pole_rotation_grib_convention() to address GRIB datasets using a pole rotation method
|
|
[ci skip]
|
|
|
|
|
|
about.rst
|
|
|
|
|
|
createOperations(): chain operations whose middle CRSs are not identical but have the same datum
|
|
intermediates B and C, such there's a A->B operation and C->D operation, and A and C are not exactly the same CRS but use the same geodetic datum
|
|
whose datum has a publication date older than the source and target datums
|
|
|
|
Populated from realization_epoch column from EPSG
The 'publication_date' naming is from OGC Topic 2, and hasn't been yet adopted
by the EPSG dataset.
See http://docs.opengeospatial.org/as/18-005r4/18-005r4.html , Annex G, clause 11
and https://32zn56499nov99m251h4e9t8-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/EPSG-relational-data-model-changes_2019-09-18.pdf
|
|
Affected parameters of Plate Motion Models.
Spotted by Xavier Collilieux on https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/proj/2019-November/009011.html
|
|
result through ITRF2008. Was broken in master by the addition of the 'WGS84 -> WGS 84 (Gxxx)' null operations in the PROJ authority
|
|
alternatives, to select the operation with best accuracy
|
|
intermediate CRS if we found direct transformation(s) but had to eliminate them due to other criteria
|
|
distinguish null transform from ballpark transform
|
|
createOperations(): remove the concept of geodetic_datum_preferred_hub
|
|
This was introduced in 63857c92b271bbcd10df0a032304982011acb2a9. Due to
the fix done in the previous commit, we can mostly revert the above commit.
We just keep the added tests and the custom WGS 84<-->WGS 84 (Gxxxx) null
transformations.
|
|
operations that belong to different authorities. Should make the concept of geodetic_datum_preferred_hub introduced some time ago obsolete
|
|
|
|
|
|
correctly the geographic coordinates of the input coord when the CRS is not Greenwich based
|
|
rouault/better_export_proj_create_vertical_crs_ex_to_projjson
import/export PROJJSON: support a interpolation_crs key to geoid_model
|
|
faithful serialization of the geoid_geog_crs parameter of proj_create_vertical_crs_ex()
|
|
|
|
rouault/fix_createoperations_with_geoidgrids_and_non_metre_vunits
createOperations(): fix transformation computation from/to a CRS with +geoidgrids and +vunits != m
|
|
+geoidgrids and +vunits != m
|
|
|
|
Minor typo fix in docs faq.rst
|
|
|
|
Fix proj_assign_context()/pj_set_ctx() with pipelines and alternative coord operations
|
|
operations
Fixes https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/issues/1989
pj_set_ctx() only changes the context to the main object. It should also
recurse down to the steps of the pipeline and the alternative coordinate
operations hold in alternativeCoordinateOperations
In the GDAL use case with multithreaded reprojection, and objects being transferred
between thread, this would cause a failed coordinate transformation to affect
an unrelated transformation of another thread...
|
|
Database: update to EPSG v9.8.4
|
|
|
|
Doc: document oddity related to identification of CRS from ESRI WKT
|
|
Or more generally formulations that don't have an explicit axis order.
Refs https://github.com/pyproj4/pyproj/issues/475
projinfo 'GEOGCS["GCS_WGS_1984",DATUM["D_WGS_1984",SPHEROID["WGS_1984",6378137.0,298.257223563]],PRIMEM["Greenwich",0.0],UNIT["Degree",0.0174532925199433]]'
returns EPSG:4326 with 100% confidence.
But its axis order is not the same as EPSG:4326.
I've pondered about this, like decreasing the confidence of the match,
but this would have downstream effects on GDAL (shapefiles with the
above content in a .prj would no longer be identified as EPSG:4326).
So for now, document that oddity.
|
