0

I am trying to convert point data from EPSG:3080 to EPSG:4326 in PostGIS. When using ST_Transform(geom,4326) against a source column defined as 3080 I am getting incorrect results. If I use ST_Transform(geom,'proj4_text',4326) (where the proj4 specification for EPSG:3080 is directly from http://spatialreference.org/ref/epsg/3080/) it is giving proper answers. I looked at the definition for EPSG:3080 in the spatial_ref_sys table and it seems correct, although it is in WKT format rather than proj4). Clearly I'm misunderstanding or misusing something, but I'm unsure what that might be.


Problem was that I entered a (wrong) value and read it as being correct - at least a dozen times.

ST_Transform works just fine.

closed as off-topic by Ian Turton Jun 12 '17 at 15:08

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This problem cannot or can no longer be reproduced. Changes to the system or to the asker's circumstances may have rendered the question obsolete, or the question does not include a procedure to enable potential answerers to reproduce the same symptoms. Such questions are off-topic as they are unlikely to help future readers, but editing them to include more details can lead to re-opening." – Ian Turton
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1

There is also field named proj4text in PostGIS. This query

select proj4text from spatial_ref_sys where srid=3080;

gives me this

+proj=lcc +lat_1=27.41666666666667 +lat_2=34.91666666666666 +lat_0=31.16666666666667 +lon_0=-100 +x_0=914400 +y_0=914400 +datum=NAD27 +units=ft +no_defs

while your link shows another string

+proj=lcc +lat_1=27.41666666666667 +lat_2=34.91666666666666 +lat_0=31.16666666666667 +lon_0=-100 +x_0=914400 +y_0=914400 +ellps=clrk66 +datum=NAD27 +to_meter=0.3048 +no_defs 

I can't say which one is correct and on what basis.

  • Another reason why spatialreference.org is out of date, while epsg.io/3080 is the same as PostGIS, and presumably correct. – Mike T Jun 14 '17 at 2:49

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