Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Constraints on the CRSH/CRNM ISO 8211 subfield #176

Open
FrankHippmann opened this issue Aug 3, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Constraints on the CRSH/CRNM ISO 8211 subfield #176

FrankHippmann opened this issue Aug 3, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
documentation only Improvements or additions to documentation Post-Edition 2.0.0 Product Specification Issues/Proposals for changes to the S-101 Prod. Spec.

Comments

@FrankHippmann
Copy link

FrankHippmann commented Aug 3, 2024

In B-5.1.10 of the S-101 Product Specification, the CRSH/CRNM ISO 8211 subfield is constrained to:

“WGS84” for horizontal CRS
“Depth - *” for vertical CRS where * is the name of the vertical datum

I note that the EPSG name for WGS 84 is "WGS 84" (i.e., including the space before the 84).

GEOGCS["WGS 84", DATUM["WGS_1984", SPHEROID["WGS 84",6378137,298.257223563, AUTHORITY["EPSG","7030"]], AUTHORITY["EPSG","6326"]], PRIMEM["Greenwich",0, AUTHORITY["EPSG","8901"]], UNIT["degree",0.0174532925199433, AUTHORITY["EPSG","9122"]], AUTHORITY["EPSG","4326"]]

Based on S-100 Validation Checks check S100_Dev0214 (see also S-58 check 26a), a critical error is reported when the CRSH/CRNM subfield of a dataset does not conform to one of the above. There are production systems that use the EPSG name for WGS 84 to populate CRSH/CRNM, which results in a critical error, and the resulting dataset may be rejected by an RENC and/or ECDIS.

Given that CRSH/CRNM is a descriptive name only, and that CRSH/CRSI already uniquely identifies the datum, having a strict value constraint on CRSH/CRNM is considered unnecessary. The above constraint can be left blank or be replaced with a more general guidance, for example,

The name of the datum.

The S-100 validation check identifiers are under review and are subject to change. As such, the text to the relevant check is:

For each subfield whose value is not within the range of permissible values as defined by S-100 or the dataset's product specification.

@JeffWootton JeffWootton added documentation only Improvements or additions to documentation Product Specification Issues/Proposals for changes to the S-101 Prod. Spec. Post-Edition 2.0.0 labels Aug 28, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation only Improvements or additions to documentation Post-Edition 2.0.0 Product Specification Issues/Proposals for changes to the S-101 Prod. Spec.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants