NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Rob Cermak wrote:
I am pleased that this has raised this question of Gaussian grids! We have rectified the grid in X-Y for our datasets, but we have abused the describeCoverage XML to explain the Z dimension as followsAnd, not sure if this is the same issue, rotated grids? Grids like #203 and also RUC2 grid #252. No where near monotonic for lat and lon and typically the only georeference information given is a reference lat/lon and reference lon as below: lat1: 16.281lon1: 233.862 lov: 265.000 RUC2 #252:rec 1:0:date 2005062312 VGRD kpds5=34 kpds6=105 kpds7=10 levels=(0,10) grid=252 10 m above gnd anl:VGRD=v wind [m/s] timerange 0 P1 0 P2 0 TimeU 1 nx 301 ny 225 GDS grid 3 num_in_ave 0 missing 0 center 7 subcenter 0 process 105 Table 2 Lambert Conf: Lat1 16.281000 Lon1 233.862000 Lov 265.000000 Latin1 25.000000 Latin2 25.000000 LatSP 0.000000 LonSP 0.000000 North Pole (301 x 225) Dx 20.318000 Dy 20.318000 scan 64 mode 8 min/max data -12.4 12.2 num bits 8 BDS_Ref -124 DecScale 1 BinScale 0Regridding is fine, but the preference is to maintain the integrity of the data in its original form.
Hi Rob:Generally, projection grids are curvilinear in lat, lon, so what you are saying applies to all those, including the RUC.nc example. However, these are almost always regularly spaced in x,y on the projection plane. We do seem to have a problem in that GML does not appear to have a clean way to specify these projections, unless they are in the EPSG database.
I agree with you about serving data in the original form, its what we are hoping we can do with WCS.
galeon archives: