Le 14/11/2012 00:44, Nik Sands a écrit :
Thanks very much for looking into this. I've filed the bug at
https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/4894
I have submitted a patch (see ticket). I couldn't test it completely,
because you didn't provide image files matching the .map files.
So please tes
Thanks very much for looking into this. I've filed the bug at
https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/4894
On 13/11/2012, at 10:02 PM, Jean-Claude Repetto wrote:
> Le 13/11/2012 01:03, Nik Sands a écrit :
>> Thanks for the replies so far. Unfortunately, adding a 3rd calibration
>> point to the
Le 13/11/2012 01:03, Nik Sands a écrit :
Thanks for the replies so far. Unfortunately, adding a 3rd calibration point
to the .map file has not helped. Of course I'm assuming that the added
calibration point is valid (eg, I tried the one suggested below, which looks
like it should be OK).
Do
Nik Sands nixanz.com> writes:
>
> Thanks for the replies so far. Unfortunately, adding a 3rd calibration point
to the .map file has not
> helped. Of course I'm assuming that the added calibration point is valid (eg,
I tried the one suggested
> below, which looks like it should be OK).
>
> Doe
Thanks for the replies so far. Unfortunately, adding a 3rd calibration point
to the .map file has not helped. Of course I'm assuming that the added
calibration point is valid (eg, I tried the one suggested below, which looks
like it should be OK).
Does anybody have any other suggestions as to
Nik Sands nixanz.com> writes:
>
> I appreciate that (hence pasting the content of the file in my original
email). However, I don't know how to
> be certain that the text I put into the file represents something that makes
sense.
>
> However, as I said I will give it a shot (when I get back to
I appreciate that (hence pasting the content of the file in my original email).
However, I don't know how to be certain that the text I put into the file
represents something that makes sense.
However, as I said I will give it a shot (when I get back to my computer).
On 12/11/2012, at 7:52 PM
Le 12/11/2012 09:10, Nik Sands a écrit :
I will try but don't have any Ozi products and am not confident I can create
one that is legitimate. The same may apply to the user who raised the issue
but I will check.
You don't need Ozi, only a text editor.
__
I will try but don't have any Ozi products and am not confident I can create
one that is legitimate. The same may apply to the user who raised the issue
but I will check.
On 12/11/2012, at 7:02 PM, Jean-Claude Repetto wrote:
> On 12/11/2012 08:16, Nik Sands wrote:
>> Is that limitation actu
On 12/11/2012 08:16, Nik Sands wrote:
> Is that limitation actually built into GDAL?
> Because 2-point .map files are not uncommon, and so long as the two points
> are both different in both axes, then there should be no reason why a 3rd
> point in required (especially in UTM).
>
> Nik.
Have yo
Is that limitation actually built into GDAL?
Because 2-point .map files are not uncommon, and so long as the two points are
both different in both axes, then there should be no reason why a 3rd point in
required (especially in UTM).
Cheers,
Nik.
On 12/11/2012, at 6:13 PM, Jean-Claude Repetto
On 12/11/2012 05:02, Nik Sands wrote:
>
> Please help me figure out why the two sets of .map files behave so
> differently. In particular, how can I get a spatial reference system for the
> failing .map files?
> (Content of two example files are below. First one is OK, second one fails.
> Le
Hi,
I have two sets of Ozi .map files (and corresponding ozf2 files) that behave
very differently when processed by GDAL using the following code:
char *srcWKT = (char *)GDALGetProjectionRef( hSrcDS );
if ( srcWKT == NULL || strlen(srcWKT) <= 0 )
13 matches
Mail list logo
