2

I'm having trouble to reproject a shape file in Qgis.

The projection is supposed to be "ETRS89 (Ellipsoid: GRS80) 6-Degree Zone 33" and I would like to project it to UTM33N - WGS84 (EPSG 32633). When I set the Layer CRS to EPSG 25833 or EPSG 4258 and save it as UTM33N-WGS84 I don't get the result as intended...

This is the file I would like to reproject: http://www.projektidee.org/images/extern/landschaftsschutz.zip

It should fit to this area in the end: http://www.projektidee.org/images/extern/gebiet_UTM33.dbf.zip

Maybe one of you could give me a hint what I'm doing wrong?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

Well, screw the ordnance survey of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (and Brandenburg for that matter). They decided to go with their own custom CRS which add a leading 3 or 33 to the easting value (must remind them of their beloved Gauß-Krüger coordinates I suppose). I know that at least in Brandenburg they were offically forced to use the official UTM variants in the future, but they blessed us with these irregular CRS - Brandenburg even gave it an EPSG code! (EPSG:325832 is EPSG:25832 plus the leading 3...)

Well, to solve your problems, add a custom CRS to QGis:

  • Name: MV ETRS89 Zone 33:
  • Parameter: +proj=tmerc +lat_0=0 +lon_0=15 +k=0.9996 +x_0=33500000 +y_0=0 +ellps=GRS80 +units=m +no_defs

Then assigning EPSG 32633 to the LSG layer and assigning this custom CRS to your data layer and enabling on-the-fly projection, they will align. Feel free to save your data layer in an offical CRS... ;)

The ordnance survey of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern are at least so kind as to provide this information on their website: How to use their freaking CRS

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    Ah... So it was the ordnance survey of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern producing these strange shapefiles with the 33-million metre shift on the x axis. It's always nice to know, what a humdinger. Your solution is more elegant than mine, when the problem arose a couple of weeks ago I got round it by doing an affine transformation. Nick.
    – nhopton
    Commented May 19, 2012 at 17:15
  • nhopton, your affine transformation basically was reprojecting them, so your solution is as valid as mine. Whatever works, I suppose? :)
    – Crischan
    Commented May 19, 2012 at 17:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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