[Proj] datum matters
strebe at aol.com
Sun Mar 29 14:15:25 EST 2009
On Mar 29, 2009, at 9:10:46 AM, "Richard Greenwood" <richard.greenwood at gmail.com> wrote:
The "computational burden" of comparing the input and output datum is
no more intensive than converting from radians to degrees.
But this is quite my point about misplaced conceptual burdens. Many people do not even have datums attached to their cartographic data because the datum is irrelevant at the scale they are working. What is the use of forcing them to declare a fictitious datum in order to satisfy an ideological conflation of datum and projection?
you will not argue that we limit ourselves to radians. The "conceptual
burden" is more subjective, but closer to my point: That to a growing
number of users, datum does matter.
The number may be growing, but they will never be even close to everyone.. I do not agree everyone should be forced into artificial procedures in order to save some fraction of them from their own ignorance. That is arrogance, if nothing else. No one knows what is best for everyone. Datum and projection are distinct. Let those who need to treat them distinctly, treat them distinctly. Let those who may or must ignore datums, ignore datums.
— daan Strebe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Proj