Re: [gdal-dev] Shapefile with corrupted index: SHAPE_RESTORE_SHX=YES doesn't correctly repairs it.

Hi Jan, thank you very much for looking at this issue. I had already managed to restore the .shx index file, as reported in my first message [1] [2] by fixing the GDAL/OGR SHPRestoreSHX routine [3]. Even Rouault also further improved it adding extra sanity checks, a better logic and better err

Re: [gdal-dev] Fwd: Transformation of image data between pixel/line and projected coordinates - using geolocation arrays, in both directions, without disk access

Thanks, Even, that works perfectly! Very nice to have a GDAL-implementation for that! Best, Daniel Am 16.05.2023 um 21:34 schrieb Even Rouault: Daniel, You rightly spotted https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/6069 as the enabler for that capability. if your existing target dataset has a g

Re: [gdal-dev] Shapefile with corrupted index: SHAPE_RESTORE_SHX=YES doesn't correctly repairs it.

Have to get back on this, I did not look well at the shapefile I generated (see last mail). It is both better and worse. It has most of the missing objects, to my surprise, but appears to have some invalid coordinates which show up as horizontal lines in the west part. Still it may help in reconstr

Re: [gdal-dev] Shapefile with corrupted index: SHAPE_RESTORE_SHX=YES doesn't correctly repairs it.

Hi all, As noted in the QGis issues , the shx has problems that ogr2ogr (or QGis Repair Shapefile) will not fix; The error I get in cmdline with SHAPE_RESTORE_SHX=YES is "ERROR 4: Error parsing .shp to restore .shx". Long time ago I wrote my own version t

Re: [gdal-dev] How to read tiles size of a tiff

Thank you very much Laurentiu, this was what i needed ___ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev

Re: [gdal-dev] How to read tiles size of a tiff

Hi Andy, gdalinfo is the tool that displays information about rasters. Yours is 337x217 pixels, with a 337x24 block size, which is completely unrelated to the OL tiling grid, and there's no -256 here. The only unusual thing about your image is that instead of the customary positive X, negative