<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Frank Warmerdam <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:warmerdam@pobox.com">warmerdam@pobox.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 7:49 AM, J Luis <<a href="mailto:jmfluis@gmail.com">jmfluis@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> which is fine and means that the left side altitude was interpreted as<br>
> ellipsoidal height and the output is the geoid undulation at that point.<br>
> Because this matter can easily be confusing, I propose that 2 extra options<br>
> are added to cs2cs so that we can unambiguously tell the program what type<br>
> of altitudes are provided in input. And those would be<br>
><br>
> +H -> means input height are ellipsoidal heights<br>
> +h -> means input are Orthometric (plain 'altitudes')<br>
><br>
> and the output is determined according with the relation h = H - N<br>
<br>
</div>Joaquim,<br>
<br>
I don't agree with this change amoung other reasons because it<br>
is different than the horizontal datum case. Note that despite<br>
the +geoidgrids parameter name, the system does not know<br>
anything about geoid's. Such grids can also be used to express<br>
offsets from other kinds of vertical datums from the ellipsoidal<br>
height.</blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Right, but as I said, I think it will be a bit confusing as this thread proves.</div><div><br></div><div>Joaquim </div></div>