Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consider about adding back in Mercator projection #4

Closed
thareUSGS opened this issue Feb 16, 2023 · 5 comments · Fixed by #5
Closed

Consider about adding back in Mercator projection #4

thareUSGS opened this issue Feb 16, 2023 · 5 comments · Fixed by #5

Comments

@thareUSGS
Copy link

thareUSGS commented Feb 16, 2023

The Mercator projection historically was a popular projection for planetary maps. There is some interest in re-listing Mercator as an option since it has been recently widely used in web maps. Original 2000 codes listed it as XXX74 (e.g., 49974), defaulting to center meridian = 0.

Perhaps wait until next IAU report (ETA -- soon-ish) to add this in -- even if an addition should be backwards compatible.

@AndrewAnnex
Copy link
Contributor

@thareUSGS and @J-Christophe take a look at #5 as I'd like to not have to wait for the next IAU report, I've also made OSGeo/PROJ#3645 to patch things on PROJ

@AndrewAnnex
Copy link
Contributor

#5 addresses this issue for this repo

@thareUSGS
Copy link
Author

thareUSGS commented Mar 30, 2023

@AndrewAnnex for global maps (and planetary), I generally like to at least have clon=0 AND a clon=180 for those who want a more 0 to 360 data set. However, since this is really to fit into existing applications/services, do you ever see those being able to support clon=180. Basically should we add a code "91" to be clon=180?

@AndrewAnnex
Copy link
Contributor

@thareUSGS I could add that but I think the code would have to be "95" to follow the standard used elsewhere here, a bigger question is if psuedomercator even allows for the idea of a anti-meridian centered mercator projection. I don't think many tools even respect the clon=180 for the equirectangular case as-is though so hopefully this isn't a blocker issue for you and this pr

@thareUSGS
Copy link
Author

Good catch, yes if would be 95. I am tempted to leave it out for now since this is for matching existing services.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants