-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 71
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[5.5.4+]: CF 1.9 and Geostationary projection #1200
Comments
Nothing else I know of to consider, @ethanrd can you think of anything? |
Only thing is (probably clear already but just to be complete and explicit) both |
@ethanrd, What I did was add the angular coordinate standard name as acceptable. No way was I taking out the old non-angular coordinate standard name. You can take a look at the June 14 commit on rschmunk/netcdf-java to see what little I found seemed necessary. |
@rschmunk - Yeah, I figured you were on it. Looks good. Thanks! |
Resolved by PR #1202. |
Versions impacted by the bug
v5.x
What went wrong?
The latest CF Convention release (1.10) and apparently the prior release (1.9) now specify that the x and y coordinate variables must have standard_name attributes with values "projection_x_angular_coordinate" and "projection_y_angular_coordinate" rather than the previously specified values of "projection_x_coordinate" and "projection_y_coordinate". This thoroughly messes up using NJ's geostationary projected grid handling.
At first look, it seems that adding a couple more definitions to
ucar.nc2.constants.C
F, and then modifying the if statements inucar.nc2.dataset.conv.CF1Convention
anducar.nc2.internal.dataset.conv.CF1Convention
that discover the projection x and y axes is sufficient to fix this. At least doing so with my local copy of NJ was sufficient to enable working with the grid and to make a plot.Before I submit a pull request, though, is there anything else I should keep in mind?
ETA: This was brought to my attention by someone at EUMETSAT, who said his particular group is trying to bring their data products up to compliance with CF 1.9 (or later).
Code of Conduct
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: