<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [Proj] The world of ECEF aka geocentric coordinates</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16788" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText94956 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=2>I find Wiki stuff garbage and worthless in that a knowledgeable</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>entry can be changed and modified by an incompetent. How would</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>a potential reader be able to distinguish the difference as the </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>contributors are anonymous? Even with named attribution, the </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>reader would be faced with the task of further research which is</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>unlikely as the reader is attempting to avoid scholarly research</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>by merely going to the Wiki site.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>I find it an idealistic waste of time.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>C. Mugnier</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>LSU</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> proj-bounces@lists.maptools.org on behalf of Hamish<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wed 04-Feb-09 01:28<BR><B>To:</B> PROJ.4 and general Projections Discussions<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Proj] The world of ECEF aka geocentric coordinates<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>Clifford J Mugnier wrote:<BR>> I personally find the Wiki stuff useless and misleading.<BR>> The proper reference is Bomford's Geodesy (Editions 1<BR>> thru 4), and not the other trivia listed at the end. The<BR>> term ECEF is new-age baloney. The Geocentric Coordinate<BR>> System is the original and decades-old terminology<BR>> recognized in the classical literature. The notation used<BR>> in the Wiki equations is just more gobbledygook, as Bomford<BR>> established the proper (and world-wide recognized) notation<BR>> about 50 years ago. As if Wiki is entitled to ignore (?)<BR>> the ellipsoid normal terminated by the semi-minor axis? The<BR>> term "spheroid" is further glaring evidence of<BR>> classical geodetic ignorance. That noun is only used with<BR>> an ellipsoid that has a specific datum with an associated<BR>> geoid. Applicable to OSGB36 and WGS84, but certainly not to<BR>> most classical datums found throughout the world.<BR><BR><BR>If you find that a wiki is incorrect, please please please take the time<BR>to fit it! That's the whole point of a wiki and the best way to stop<BR>garbage being propagated. A few minutes spent there removing/fixing<BR>mistakes and improving the "further reading" section could help avert<BR>countless mop-up jobs and substandard softwares for hundreds of end-users.<BR><BR>debate & justifications can be listed on the entry's "Discussion" page.<BR><BR><BR>humbly,<BR>Hamish<BR><BR><BR><BR> <BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Proj mailing list<BR>Proj@lists.maptools.org<BR><A href="http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj">http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj</A><BR></FONT></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>