- From: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:16:16 +0000
- To: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>, simon.cox@csiro.au
- Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2015 09:16:57 UTC
Yes matters sometimes.. to some people.. It is equally a generalisation to say that geodetic details are relevant to everyone using global coordinates on the web ! Ed On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 at 03:01 Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com> wrote: > An excellent cautionary tale. For example, the 3D default coordinate > system is cited as EPSG:4979, with optional elevation relative to the WGS84 > geoid. However, 4979 elevation is relative to the WGS84 ellipsoid, not the > geoid the RFC cites. There is a defined WGS84 gravimetric geoid (EGM96) > that varies from the ellipsoid by around +/-100m over the earth, and is > approximated by a coarse coverage in most modern GPS units while neglected > in older ones. Unfortunately the geodetic details matter. > > -Josh > > > On Jul 21, 2015, at 8:08 PM, simon.cox@csiro.au wrote: > > Just became aware of this (via the GeoJSON list) > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5870#section-3.4.5 > > I’ve added it to the BP ref list > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_References > > Simon > > > -- *Ed Parsons* Geospatial Technologist, Google Mobile +44 (0)7825 382263 www.edparsons.com @edparsons
Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2015 09:16:57 UTC