Database: add an optional step_direction column to the concatenated_operation_step table #4357
Conversation
rouault
added
the
funded through GSP
rouault
force-pushed
the
concatenated_operation_step_direction
branch
2 times, most recently
from
38b85ed to
6c9ca65
Compare
…peration_step table and consequently bump database version structure to 1.5 Building a concatenated operation from its steps is a incredibly complex logic, which requires: - figuring out in which direction the step must be actually run - set source/target CRS on conversions, that natively lack it, by propagating. This is done by propagating CRS from the neighbouring steps... when this is possible. If you chain directly too many conversions, we'll lack the information at some point. Hopefully for records we have, this is mostly just a theoretical concern (I believe, not totally sure...) All that is to satisfy consistency checks, that check that target_crs[op[n]] == source_crs[op[n+1]]. Although in some cases we do need to access the CRS. Typically for a map projection to know the ellipsoid shape. So the alternative would be to attach the ellipsoid shape as a parameter of a map projection (the good old +ellps parameter of PROJ.4 strings) rather than relying on the one of the base geographic CRS. - sometimes insert an implicit Geographic<-->Geocentric conversion step - other things I might not even suspect. This change tries to slightly improve this by addressing the first issue mentioned - figuring out the direction - by adding a step_direction column to the concatenated_operation_step table. Obviously as currently the EPSG dataset doesn't include such information (CC @RogerLott with which I've recently discussed that issue), we must still allow a NULL value to mean unknown. For the few records we maintain under our PROJ authority, we can define it though. At least, this improves a bit the readability of our records. While writing all this, and recalling code I had to write in past years in the pipeline inference logic that need to synthetize intermediate CRS, I'm strongly thinking to what you mentionned @busstoptaktik about the limitations of the current model... Requiring that operation steps have a CRS is a major practical annoyance.
rouault
force-pushed
the
concatenated_operation_step_direction
branch
from
6c9ca65 to
1078177
Compare
|
I will make the IOGP Geodesy Subcommittee aware. My personal opinion (not necessarily shared by the subcommittee) is that this assists implementation and therefore is a good idea, but (a trivial detail) if implemented in EPSG would likely use value of 'reverse' rather than 'inverse' as this is the term used in method formulas in Guidance Note 7-2. I will also take it to the ongoing 19111 revision deliberations, but in that abstract spec this might consider the issue an implementation detail so out of scope. |
Thanks @RogerLott . It would be great having it in the next big release. IMHO it is not only an implementation detail. Recently I had to define a concatenated operation, and I spent some time looking for how to specify the direction. I could not expect that there was no such thing. It seemed to be not completely defined. |
ok, I've changed this PR to 'reverse'
Deeply second that. I can't possibly be the only one to have suffered from that, or nobody has seriously tried to implement 19111 concatenated operations to transform coordinates. |
and consequently bump database version structure to 1.5
Building a concatenated operation from its steps is a incredibly complex logic, which requires:
This change tries to slightly improve this by addressing the first issue mentioned - figuring out the direction - by adding a step_direction column to the concatenated_operation_step table. Obviously as currently the EPSG dataset doesn't include such information (CC @RogerLott with which I've recently discussed that issue), we must still allow a NULL value to mean unknown. For the few records we maintain under our PROJ authority, we can define it though. At least, this improves a bit the readability of our records.
While writing all this, and recalling code I had to write in past years in the pipeline inference logic that need to synthetize intermediate CRS, I'm strongly thinking to what you mentionned @busstoptaktik about the limitations of the current model... Requiring that operation steps have a CRS is a major practical annoyance.