Simplify the bounds of reprojection VRT - #205
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The current code for calculating the bounds of a reprojection VRT attempts to restrict the VRT against the extent of the underlying file in its own coordinate system. This turns out to create problems when the underlying projection is well outside the safe use area of the working projection.
To avoid these problems, just use the simpler option of making the VRT extent always identical to the working grid extent. I had earlier thought there was a performance benefit to the more complicated approach, but it appears not. This is probably because GDAL's VRT code is much cleverer than I am.
As discussed in #204