1

I'm quite unsure if this is the right place to ask but I would like to have some advice from experts.

I'm working on a QGIS project in a small area in the south of Portugal. I've been questioning myself about which projection would be the most appropriate for the project.

Since I'm aiming to establish marine protected areas, I believe that choosing one that would preserve areas and keep them as close to reality as much as possible would be the best option (please do correct me if I'm wrong), meaning an equal-area projection.

Can anyone indicate an EPSG that would fit into these parameters?

Until now, I was using the global 4326 and I also experimented with 32629 (WGS 84 / UTM zone 29N)

EDIT: My area of interest has 9 000 km². I would prefer for the error to be as small as possible but I can tolerate if it is not uniform.

Improve this question
1
  • 1
    Can you define how accurate the scale must be, for example in percents? Can you tolerate if the error is not uniform over the whole area? How big are the extents of your small area in kilometers or degrees?
    – user30184
    Commented Mar 21, 2018 at 14:34

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

On small scales UTM is what you want to choose, since spatial analysis is easier due to UTM being based on metric lengths. See also this question for more in-depth-information.

Which UTM-strip you want to choose, depends on where your project is situated.

Improve this answer
2
  • So, in this case, using EPSG: 32629 would be acceptable I suppose?
    – Ricardo Simões
    Commented Mar 21, 2018 at 14:43
  • 1
    Yes, it is. There might be - in some cases - a slightly more fitting special CRS, but I can't think of one in this case.
    – Erik
    Commented Mar 21, 2018 at 15:15

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.