[Geowanking] Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Input regarding Axis Order Confusion

Daniel Morissette dmorissette at mapgears.com
Fri Dec 15 09:08:02 PST 2006

The beauty of cross-posting to multiple lists... I just replied to the 
osgeo-discuss fork of this thread asking for an update on what happened 
at OGC this week and just found my answer here.

So nobody present at the OGC meeting saw the issue? It's not about 
deciding which one is "correct" between x,y, or y,x, or lon,lat, or 
lat,lon ... I could not care less as long as pick one and only one and 
go with it. Variable axis order based on SRS code like what has been 
introduced in WMS 1.3 is the worst possible situation for 
interoperability IMNSHO.

WMS 1.1.x has been a huge success, widely adopted and deployed because 
it was simple... simple to implement a server, and simple to implement a 
client... and WMS 1.3 broke that simplicity!

Here ya go... you got me going again... time to stop...


Arnulf Christl wrote:
> On Wed, December 13, 2006 18:55, Bob Basques wrote:
>> Arnulf Christl wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> if you are aware of anything that might enhance information regarding
>>> the
>>> great Axis Order Confusion that we are faced with in the spatial realm
>>> please feel free to add it to this Wiki page:
>>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Axis_Order_Confusion
>> I did add a little tidbit to this related to 3D.
>> bobb
> Thank you so much. I mean - it sounds stupid if I personally thank you for
> doing this as it is something that comes naturally from a community of
> which I am just part. My "problem" is that I know that there are quite a
> few negative vibes around regarding what happened to WMS 1.3 with respect
> to the axis order (regardless of ommitting SLD) but it seems to be hard to
> get those people to voice them yet again.
> I have been at (yet another) discussion regarding what OGC is going to do
> with respect to changing the axis order in 1.3 and later. It seems like
> they (we?) are going to stick with it. Why that? Because nobody is against
> it (here you come in) and it is the "right" way to do it. With respect to
> the EPSG definitionn this is actually true. With respect to GeoRSS it is
> actually also true.
> Nonetheless I wonder whether it really makes sense to write down something
> like (y,x,z) when noting something down including height. It does not look
> as stupid if you code it in GeoRSS where height has its own tag "elev".
> Yeah, but what mess is this?
> If I am alone with the approach of trying to leave x and y where they
> belong then I will just shut up and thats it. but we are then losing
> contact to the standards body and I don't think this is a good idea.
> If you are tired to talk about this publicly you can get me directly to
> rant away but please at least do this as I currently feel sort of stupid
> to have started this discussion (yet again) when it is completely
> irrelevant to everybody. (I know that my hurt feelings are not a
> compelling reason to become active but the prospect of breaking a thousand
> public WMS and drop downward omaptiability did not seem to do the trick?!)
> :-)
> Thanks.
>>> There is some discussion going as to having to break WMS 1.1.1 (and WFS
>>> and SFS and probably everything) in order to rectify this problem which
>>> I
>>> think is the end of the world. Well, ok maybe not quite but it will make
>>> things stall, so lets be reasonable on this.
>>> Thanks,
>> --
>> ****************  You can't be late until you show up.  ***************
>> ************  You never learn anything by doing it right.  ************
>> ***  War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.  ***
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe at mail.osgeo.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help at mail.osgeo.org

Daniel Morissette

More information about the Geowanking mailing list