<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
        {color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
        {color:navy;
        text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
        {font-family:Arial;
        color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
        {size:8.5in 11.0in;
        margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
        {page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=navy>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>As a member of the GeoTIFF
user community, I am wondering how the next version of GeoTIFF will be adopted.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>If the plan is not to stop
at v1.0, how can users participate in the adoption of standard geokeys for the
next version of the GeoTIFF spec?</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>I have seen several threads
related to the use of GeoTIFF to store DEMs. In fact one of them was mine!</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>It seems that GeoTIFF is an
ideal format for representing DEMs, but currently it has some shortcomings</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>unless non-standard private
keys are used. The use of private keys limits the general utility of storing
data this way.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>We are using 4 private keys
in the 32000 - 33000 range to tag values for overall absolute horizontal
accuracy, absolute vertical accuracy, relative horizontal accuracy and relative
vertical accuracy for a DEM stored as GeoTIFF. These are the same values stored
in a DTED format file as defined in MIL-PRF-89020B, "PERFORMANCE
SPECIFICATION DIGITAL TERRAIN ELEVATION DATA (DTED)" <a
href="http://earth-info.nga.mil/publications/specs/printed/89020B/89020B.pdf">http://earth-info.nga.mil/publications/specs/printed/89020B/89020B.pdf</a></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>(See section 6.4.1 a, b, c,
d on page 37).</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>We are interested in
participating in the process which could lead to having these 4 keys officially
adopted as part of the new spec. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>We have seen a draft spec
calling itself version 1.5 which may have originated at JPL. But still this
spec is incomplete, having provided for only 2 accuracy values.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Hopefully, others trying to store
DEMs in GeoTIFF format will express a similar interest in the additions needed
to establish a standard set of geokeys for easy interchange of DEM data.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Best regards,</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Gail Nagle</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>BAE Systems</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>San Diego</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>