Take the 2-minute tour ×
Geographic Information Systems Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for cartographers, geographers and GIS professionals. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm having trouble with two maps, both UTM33N/WGS84. They should be exactly on top of each other but there is a slight shift between them of probably a few hundred meters or so. enter image description here

I Tried to adjust this with the Vector Affine Transformation Plugin but didn't succeed. I don't know how to use it.

share|improve this question
1  
Have a look at the answer here - qgsAffine is not easy to use, but works once you know the numbers to plug in. I do agree with @Darren Cope's suggestion though - check the origins and intended scale of each layer to see if they even should line up. –  Simbamangu May 10 '12 at 16:50
6  
Are you sure both datasets are on wgs84? A few hundred meters could be due to different datums. –  mkennedy May 10 '12 at 18:08
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

I think we are getting somewhere. The original shapefile (contained in forste-orig.zip) appears to be Pulkovo 1942(83)/Gauss-Kruger Zone 4, which is EPSG:2398. So if you load this into QGIS and set its CRS to EPSG:2398, then save it as EPSG:32633 this should do the trick. Nick.

share|improve this answer
    
Strange. Now it woked! Thanks! –  desputin May 12 '12 at 6:30
add comment

To me this looks like a 'scale' issue. The layers appear to be drawn at a different level of detail, and thus will never line up exactly. Am I missing something?

share|improve this answer
    
The curves look to have the same level of detail to me. –  nmpeterson May 10 '12 at 17:40
    
@nmpeterson; I really don't think so. Look in the bottom-left corner specifically. There's no way this is can be a 'matching' dataset. Please don't downvote without closer inspection! –  Darren Cope May 10 '12 at 18:33
    
I inspected rather closely. The blobby features' coastal path seem to be a convex hull of the underlying polygons, but shifted dramatically (as the OP believes). –  nmpeterson May 10 '12 at 18:44
    
It doesn't help that the underlying features seem to be only a sample of a larger dataset, making it more difficult for us to know where the actual "coastline" is in certain places, like the lower left -- are those actually islands, or just polygons whose neighbors aren't a part of the sample? –  nmpeterson May 10 '12 at 18:46
    
Which is the dataset with the problems? If it's not confidential could you post a download link? Nick. –  nhopton May 10 '12 at 19:31
show 4 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.