Jump to content
  • 1

Geo-referencing - Problem

shorter

Asked by shorter,

Question

6 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Tom W.

Tom W.

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, shorter said:

If I copy and paste objects, or more specifically, a group from a file with no geo-referenced layer to one with a geo-referenced layer, it scales the object!

 

Not only that it rotates the object and moves it 1000s of meters away with no apparent logic.

 

Is this a known issue?

 

I only see this when I say 'yes' when it asks me 'Project the pasted objects into the georeferenced layer'. I always say no. I think it's to do with transforming the objects to match the projection of the coordinate system or the curvature of the earth...? If I say no to projecting the objects all is fine.

 

13 minutes ago, Benson Shaw said:

Not sure about ANY objects, or groups thereof, but. . .

Similar behavior with LAS and LAZ point clouds imported to georeferenced vwx file (only tested with US NOAA files of terrain/ ground) . Scale and location waaay off. Group the point cloud and it jumps far away.  
-B

 

I've never had any issues importing point clouds into georeferenced files in this respect. They always come into the file in exactly the right place as regards x/y/z + orientation. HOWEVER the issue I have is that they come in with missing points due to distance-from-internal-origin problems: the point cloud will only import whole (with all the points intact) if the internal origin is coincident with the user origin which is obviously not going to be the case in a georeferenced file. So a completely ridiculous situation really. But that's a different issue to the original post...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 0
shorter

shorter

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, Tom W. said:

 

I only see this when I say 'yes' when it asks me 'Project the pasted objects into the georeferenced layer'. I always say no. I think it's to do with transforming the objects to match the projection of the coordinate system or the curvature of the earth...? If I say no to projecting the objects all is fine.

 

 

I've never had any issues importing point clouds into georeferenced files in this respect. They always come into the file in exactly the right place as regards x/y/z + orientation. HOWEVER the issue I have is that they come in with missing points due to distance-from-internal-origin problems: the point cloud will only import whole (with all the points intact) if the internal origin is coincident with the user origin which is obviously not going to be the case in a georeferenced file. So a completely ridiculous situation really. But that's a different issue to the original post...

 

I very rarely ever click a dialog that comes up giving me the option 'Yes'.! 😉  I did in this case because I was feeling mischievous.  But this is very unexpected behaviour.  I do not recall ever giving the layer geo-referenced settings which is why I was surprised to get the message.  Clicked Yes to see what would happen and lost the plan!

Link to comment
  • 0
shorter

shorter

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, Tom W. said:

So a completely ridiculous situation really.

 

It is.  The whole geo-referencing setup feels wrong to me.  The fact that you can cheat and geo-locate a stake, for example, would for me be the same as editing a dimension to say 3m, when it is really 3.1m.  It is an absolute no-no.

Link to comment
  • 0
Tom W.

Tom W.

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, shorter said:

 

It is.  The whole geo-referencing setup feels wrong to me.  The fact that you can cheat and geo-locate a stake, for example, would for me be the same as editing a dimension to say 3m, when it is really 3.1m.  It is an absolute no-no.

 

Well the only part I feel is ridiculous relates to importing point clouds: because I can import survey data in the form of 2D geometry, 3D geometry, 3D loci, etc + it all comes into a georeferenced file in exactly the right place with no issues whatsoever but this is NOT the case with point cloud surveys. The point clouds DO come in at the correct location/orientation but suffering a graphical anomaly to do with the origin I think in the source file meaning that half the points are missing. Perhaps I need to try + get the surveyor to do something different at their end: it would be good if VW could offer some guidance on this but they have been very silent on the matter... To get around it I have to ask my (very accommodating) surveyor to include a special 'datum' point in their file at a known x/y/z location which allows me to import it into a non-georeferenced file (ensuring that all the points import correctly), then I can georeference the file afterwards + move the point cloud manually to the correct location using the datum point. It's this process which is ridiculous. It also means that I have to import the full 100% of the points otherwise I risk leaving my special datum point behind! I have no problems with georeferencing per se, only importing point clouds.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to question listing
×
×
  • Create New...