[Proj] Mugnier's columns / old German maps / von Müffling
Jan Hartmann
j.l.h.hartmann at uva.nl
Mon Nov 17 11:23:46 EST 2008
Hello,
I found the posting below on the Proj list (24-7-2004). Prof. Mugnier
mentions his Internet-columns, but the URLS he mentions do not exist
anymore. Are they still available?
More in particaular, I am trying to georeference the Tranchot-Map of the
Rhineland in Germany, surveyed by French ingénieur-géographes under
Colonel Tranchot from 1804-1813, and by Prussian Ingenieurgeographen
under General von Müffling from 1815-1828. Much geodetic information
about this survey is available in "Rudolf Schmidt, Die Kartenaufnahme
der Rheinlande durch Tranchot und vond Müffling. Teil I: Geschichte des
Kartenwerkes und vermessungstechnische Arbeiten, Bonn 1973", but if
someone on this list has further information about this map and the way
it was made, I would very much like to hear about it.
Jan
Dr. J. Hartmann
Department of Geography
University of Amsterdam
Clifford J Mugnier wrote:
>
> Maciek,
>
> I was surprised to hear of a Transverse Mercator projection on such
an old
> topo map of German territory since it was so difficult to compute by
hand.
> Remember now, that Gauss was the first to use it in the early 1800s (for
> the survey of Hannover), and he had a staff of several Ph.D. students
to do
> the "grunt" work for him. Its main purpose (the Gauss-Conform TM), for
> Gauss was to facilitate the survey computations rather than to be
used for
> a cartographic projection. The subsequent plane-table mapping for
> cadastral surveying (tax mapping) probably was on the Müffling projection
> because it was so "easy" to cast under field survey conditions.
>
> The most common projections found in old German applications were the
> "Solnder" (nowadays called the Cassini-Soldner) and the "Müffling." Both
> are aphylactic projections, although the Cassini-Soldner is slightly
closer
> mathematically to the Transverse Mercator than the Müffling. The more
> common name for that projection is the Polyhedric or the "Polyeder."
>
> The ellipsoidal Müffling uses the identical mathematics as the
> two-dimentionsional version of the 3D "Local Space Rectangular" (LSR)
> coordinate system used in 3D computational photogrammetry. It is
(almost)
> the ellipsoidal equivalent of the gnomonic projection. ALL aphylactic
> projections (Müffling/Polyeder, Cassini-Soldner, Bonne, and
Polyconic) were
> developed to facilitate drafting in the field for plane table and alidade
> compilation. For survey computations, they are awful. (See my
comments in
> my ASPRS column on Hong Kong.)
>
> The EXACT ellipsoid parameters and the EXACT number of significant digits
> published is critical to high-precision applications of geodetic
> transformations. Variations abound that are correct for certain
places for
> certain eras. Exactly when a certain set of defining parameters is
correct
> has to be discerned from government survey notes and publications. It is
> an EXACT science, but it is also remarkably obscure and esoteric.
>
> Major General von Müffling was one of the first officers in command
of the
> Topographic Engineer Corps of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. (See my
columns
> in PE&RS on Austria, Hungary, Poland, etc. for more details.)
>
> Clifford J. Mugnier
> Chief of Geodesy and
> Associate Director,
> CENTER FOR GEOINFORMATICS
> Department of Civil Engineering
> LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
> Baton Rouge, LA 70803
> Voice and Facsimile: (225) 578-8536
> ======================================================
> http://www.ASPRS.org/resources.html
> http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/mugnier/index.html
> ======================================================
>
>
> "Paul Kelly" <paul-grass at stjohnspoint.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Maciek Sieczka wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> As to the datums I tried 3 different ones and I'm not sure which one is
>>> really suitable here. I believe I had a best result with the first of
>>> the mentioned below. Though the reprojection result was very similar
>>> in each case (max 1-2 m difference) I would like to know which one
>>> is right if somebody can tell me.
>>>
>> None of them are "right"; they are all only approximations to the shift
>> between the two datums. Number 1 is for central West Germany, number 2
>>
> for
>
>> southern west Germany, and number 3 seems to be general for the whole
>>
> area
>
>> the potsdam datum is used in. However there is also a more accurate
>> 7-parameter transformation for all of Germany on the CRS website (and
>>
> also
>
>> in GRASS).
>>
>
> First I'd like to explain myself. Before I got to understand that
there are
> different datum transformation parameters available for Potsdam datum I
> have
> had propably accidently selected the "2." mentioned below when setting up
> the mapset in Grass. After that I got to the
> http://crs.bkg.bund.de/crseu/crs/descr/eu-countrysel.php?country=DE,
> understood a bit more and came to conclussion that "1." would be better
> (not
> "right" :), ok) in my case - my maps are within 50°20'N - 52°20'N. And
> after
> your message I finally noticed different Potsdam datum paramteres
available
> in Grass. Briefly that's why I was, in error, reffering to the "2." as to
> the "GRASS 5.3, datum: potsdam". Sorry for that.
>
>
>>> 1. +towgs84=584.8,67.0,400.3,0.105,0.013,-2.378,10.29
>>> taken from the
>>> http://crs.bkg.bund.de/crseu/crs/descr/eu-countrysel.php?country=DE ->
>>> DE_DHDN / GK_3 -> Transf. -> DE_DHDN (Middle) to ETRS89
>>>
>>> 2. +towgs84: 597.1,71.4,412.1,0.894,0.068,-1.563,7.58
>>> GRASS 5.3, datum: potsdam
>>>
>>> 3. +towgs84=606.0,23.0,413.0
>>> GDAL 1.2.0, potsdam bessel, Potsdam Rauenberg 1950 DHDN
>>>
>
>
>> So it all depends on which part of Germany your map covers, and e.g. if
>>
> it
>
>> is not in an area that any of the widely available transformations
covers
>> (e.g. former part of Germany that is now in Poland?)
>>
>
> Yes, former part of Germany, now in Poland, circa 50°45'N, 15°30' - 15°
> 50'E.
>
>
>> then for maximum
>> accuracy you would have to derive your own transformation using
locations
>> of churches as was suggested. But I wouldn't know how to do that...
>>
>
> Then me neither for sure.
>
> I've noticed that all the German/Bessel 1841 systems on the CRS site
> mention slightly different ellipsoid inverse flattening than Grass:
>
> Grass 5.3: 299.1528128
> CRS: 299.15281285
>
> Propably not a big difference but how big anyway?
>
> One thing more about the projection I've remembered that the guy I
got the
> map from mentioned the name "von Müffling". He seemed to know about
> the cartography even less than me (would you believe it?) but
according to
> him the projection was "multilateral projection elaborated by general
major
> von Müffling" (my own translation from Polish). I treid a brief search
> about
> this general but nothing. Is it telling anything to anybody?
>
> Maciek
>
> _______________________________________________
> Proj mailing list
> Proj at xserve.flids.com
> http://xserve.flids.com/mailman/listinfo/proj
>
>
More information about the Proj
mailing list