sounds great, thanks Ben.
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On 17/04/16 09:29, John Caron wrote:
>
>> The question I never answered for myself is what is the relationship
>> between
>> ucar.unidata.geoloc.projection.RotatedPole
>> which was contributed for CF:
>>
> [...]
>
>> and
>> ucar.unidata.geoloc.projection.RotatedLatLon
>> which was contributed for GRIB data:
>>
>
> John, as far as I can tell (and I added two unit tests to satisfy myself),
> these two projections produce identical results, and differ only in their
> projection parameters. Pull request #531 migrated rotated lat/lon GRIB2
> support to RotatedPole for conformance with CF Conventions.
>
> The change to use RotatedPole improves interoperability; for example: last
> week I merged a contributed Rotated_Pole projection into GeoTools (from the
> COSMO community), and I have support for NetCDF CF Conventions rotated pole
> in a GeoTools branch (soon to use the new Rotated_Pole projection). The old
> RotatedLatLon did not conform to CF Conventions and so lacked support.
>
> PS: I presume youve given us some test GRIB files using template 32769
>> to add to our unit tests?
>>
>
> I have not yet done so. I think that adding a template 32769 file to the
> Unidata test data set is an excellent idea. I will approach the data owner,
> seek their permission, and follow up with Christian W-G.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> --
> Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Director
> Transient Software Limited <http://transient.nz/>
> New Zealand
>
