[Proj] Update of EPSG database to v8.4

Melita Kennedy mkennedy2 at earthlink.net
Fri May 16 19:14:58 EST 2014

-----Original Message-----
>Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 13:15:50 +0200
>From: Even Rouault <even.rouault at mines-paris.org>
>Subject: Re: [Proj] Update of EPSG database to v8.4
>To: Mikael Rittri <Mikael.Rittri at carmenta.com>
>Cc: "PROJ.4 and general Projections Discussions"
>	<proj at lists.maptools.org>
>> Was this the only weirdness you found with your round-tripping check?
>Yes, it was the only one.
>> > Should we add an override to correct it to D_Peru96 ?
>> I am not sure; maybe Melita Kennedy should answer that.
>Is she someone at ESRI ?
>> I suppose one could argue that to be ESRI-compatible,
>> the entry should stay as it is.
>> But I reason like this: in your current gdal_datum.csv,
>> you have the lines
>>     1064,SIRGAS-Chile, ...,D_SIRGAS-Chile
>>     ...
>>     1067,Peru96, ...,D_SIRGAS-Chile
>> I could be wrong, but I think that if GDAL/OGR has
>> to interpret an ESRI WKT definition containing the
>> datum name D_SIRGAS-Chile, it would search the
>> ESRI_DATUM_NAME column from top to bottom, and
>> find the
>>     1064,SIRGAS-Chile,...
>> line first, so the
>>     1067,Peru96,...
>> line would never be found. So I don't see that there
>> would be any advantage in keeping the error. So if I
>> were you, I would correct it, anticipating that the
>> FileGDB SDK will be corrected sooner or later.
>Actually, I had to implement a hack in the GDAL morphFromESRI() so that if the
>GCS/PCS name contains "Peru96", the line with SIRGAS-Chile is skipped when
>resolving the DATUM name...
>Anyway, I agree it's likely an error in the FileGDB SDK, and it is better that
>we had an override in the generation script to fix gdal_datum.csv to report
>> Mikael Rittri
>> Carmenta
>> Sweden
>> http://www.carmenta.com

I'm sorry. I get the Digest version and don't always read through the messages carefully. I completely missed the reference to me until a colleague asked me about it!

Even, you found a bug in Esri's definition of Peru96. I'd have to trace back to see when we fixed it, but it's certainly fixed in ArcGIS 10.3 (not released yet). I was probably copying and pasting definitions and missed changing the datum portion. 


More information about the Proj mailing list