Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I added two CRSs to epsg registry corresponding to RGF93 V2 / Lambert93 and RGFG93 V2B / Lambert-93.
This is untested.
Note that the set of parameters is the same for all RGF93-based CRSs : these are the parameters of the projection (Lambert 93) plus a neutral towgs84 transformation (0,0,0,0,0,0,0). This addition is just to make CTS aware of the new EPSG codes.
The reason is that the new realizations V2 and V2B are just corrections of the first RGF93 realization (now known as RGF93 V1).
There is no transformation defined to go to/from a RGF93-based CRS to another, and transformations defined to go to/from a RGF93-based CRS to a CRS based on another system are the same for all 3 RGF-based CRS.