Re: [gdal-dev] OGRSpatialReference::IsSame returning TRUE unexpectedly

Thanks for the detailed write up and quick fix! Just to clarify your last sentence, are you saying there are still potential cases where IsSame returns TRUE when it shouldn't? Or were you just emphasizing that this is a very tricky check to get right in all cases? I'm just wondering if I should

Re: [gdal-dev] OGRSpatialReference::IsSame returning TRUE unexpectedly

> I assume my understanding of IsSame is flawed so any clarification would be > a big help. > Matt, Your understanding of IsSame() is correct. You just hit a bug. I've fixed it per https:// trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/7029. You can see the changeset code as a workaround to add in your own code

[gdal-dev] OGRSpatialReference::IsSame returning TRUE unexpectedly

Short version: I don't understand why the below code snippet is returning TRUE. Unless I'm missing something, EPSG 3857 is not the same as 3395, why is GDAL reporting that they are? auto epsg3857 = OGRSpatialReference(); epsg3857.importFromEPSG(3857); auto

Re: [gdal-dev] Which Proj.4 transforms are available in GDAL?

> Except that they have a scale factor with LCC 2SP, but it gets silently > dropped by GDAL/PROJ.4. Which is OK. The LCC 2SP formulation just needs the 2 standard parallels and the latitude of origin. Basically when GDAL imports a ESRI WKT and sees that there's 2 standard parallel, it

Re: [gdal-dev] Which Proj.4 transforms are available in GDAL?

Am 05.09.2017 um 19:43 schrieb Even Rouault: The shapefile clearly states DATUM["D_North_American_1927", and the download page (from the official agency) http://www.cnr.gob.sv/geoportal-cnr/ tells the same. Hum, actually looking at the full .prj, it looks similar to EPSG:5460 Yes,

Re: [gdal-dev] Which Proj.4 transforms are available in GDAL?

> > The shapefile clearly states DATUM["D_North_American_1927", and the > download page (from the official agency) > http://www.cnr.gob.sv/geoportal-cnr/ tells the same. Hum, actually looking at the full .prj, it looks similar to EPSG:5460 See: $ gdalsrsinfo ESRI::dptoA_Lambert_NAD27.prj

Re: [gdal-dev] Which Proj.4 transforms are available in GDAL?

Am 05.09.2017 um 16:56 schrieb Even Rouault: The problem is that there is no EPSG code for the projection, Ah, the -s_srs syntax is not limited to EPSG:. You can use a proj.4 string, inlined WKT, a filename that has WKT or proj.4 string in it, etc. See http://gdal.org/gdal_utilities.html

Re: [gdal-dev] Which Proj.4 transforms are available in GDAL?

> The problem is that there is no EPSG code for the projection, Ah, the -s_srs syntax is not limited to EPSG:. You can use a proj.4 string, inlined WKT, a filename that has WKT or proj.4 string in it, etc. See http://gdal.org/gdal_utilities.html > and NAD27 > datum is handled badly outside

Re: [gdal-dev] Which Proj.4 transforms are available in GDAL?

Am 01.09.2017 um 21:05 schrieb Even Rouault: On vendredi 1 septembre 2017 20:42:34 CEST Andre Joost wrote: Am 01.09.2017 um 20:14 schrieb Even Rouault: ogr2ogr -s_srs EPSG:4326 -t_srs "+proj=lcc +lat_1=13.316667 +lat_2=14.25 +lat_0=13.78 +lon_0=-89 +x_0=50 +y_0=295809.184

Re: [gdal-dev] Return from Set/GetNoDataValue

Hi Andrew, > Perhaps this is a documentation issue, I think this is mostly an implementation issue in a niche driver. The changeset that introduced this ( https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/changeset/21821 ) isn't very verbose of the motivation. I suspect that the intent was to benefit from PAM

Re: [gdal-dev] Tilesize in JPEG2000 and gdalinfo

Hi Jukka, > > If I run gdalinfo against the JPEG2000 image in > http://kartat.kapsi.fi/files/orto/etrs-tm35fin/mara_v_25000_50/2013/N53/02m > /1/N5144H.jp2 the JP2ECW driver reports the blocksize as (256x256) and > JPEG2000OpenJPEG driver reports that the block size is (1024x1024). Yes for

[gdal-dev] Tilesize in JPEG2000 and gdalinfo

Hi, If I run gdalinfo against the JPEG2000 image in http://kartat.kapsi.fi/files/orto/etrs-tm35fin/mara_v_25000_50/2013/N53/02m/1/N5144H.jp2 the JP2ECW driver reports the blocksize as (256x256) and JPEG2000OpenJPEG driver reports that the block size is (1024x1024). What interests me would be

Re: [gdal-dev] Call for discussion on RFC68: C++11 compilation mode

Hi Even, The new SDK-s have now been added. Best regards, Tamas 2017-08-29 15:18 GMT+02:00 Tamas Szekeres : > Hi Even, > > Yes, I'm planning to include msvc2015/2017 versions shortly. > > Best regards, > Tamas > > Sent from my iPhone > > 2017. aug. 14. dátummal, 19:02