Gerald I. Evenden
geraldi.evenden at gmail.com
Mon Oct 27 11:08:01 EDT 2008
On Monday 27 October 2008 9:48:36 am support.mn at elisanet.fi wrote:
> "Gerald I. Evenden" <geraldi.evenden at gmail.com> kirjoitti:
> > One burning question has come up in my mind about the need for inverse
> > solutions for non-grid-system projections like Aitoff, Hammer, etc.: why?
> For our part we need the inverse for every projection, since the users want
> to get their coordinates and other information just by clicking on the
> maps. For us those projections without forward and inveres are not usable
> at all. We currently simply discard all projections which do not have
> inverses. So we need them both all the time. And of course in the view
> point of having a general projection package there could be all the
> inverses also defined as far as it is practical.
> Regards: Janne.
I cannot say that I understand your practices but outside of cadastral
operations I do not see the usefulness of more than a four or five
projections---even less for screen display.
Really, for point and click operations one only needs equidistant cylindrical
For publication use anything that suits the purpose because you do not need to
retrieve data from such output.
As I said before, I do not comprehend the why of the "needs" of your users
and/or the item you are selling.
The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due
to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum.
-- Havelock Ellis (1859-1939) British psychologist
More information about the Proj