[GRASS-dev] area calculations in several GIS

fyi see
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/2018-September/054644.html

with GRASS mentioned
------------------
Kristian Evers:

Right, here are the calculated areas as returned by a number of different
GIS applications and the planimeter app of GeographicLib for reference:

Caris LOTS: 14.737 km^2
ArcMap: 14.727,446 km^2
MapInfo: 14.727,352 km^2
GeoMedia: 14.726,443 km^2
Planimeter: 14.722,522 km^2
QGIS 3.2: 14.652,181 km^2
QGIS 2.8: 14.652,181 km^2

The polygon that I have used to get the numbers above can be found here:
https://gist.github.com/kbevers/207b5bcb9be20e7554abe5f56742ec2c

I am quite confident that GeographicLib delivers the most accurate result
(if you have doubts, this reference [0] should convince you). As can be seen
from the table above all but QGIS come fairly close. I expect some variation
in the results as these are numerical approximations, although I think QGIS
is too far of the mark. My suspicion is that the geodesic algorithm used by
QGIS (and apparently GRASS) is to blame here.

/Kristian

[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1215.pdf
-----------------

-----
best regards
Helmut
--
Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grass-Dev-f3991897.html

FYI:

Here are GRASS area measures for the given geometry:
In WGS84: 14718097678.6716
In UTM 33 (an appropriate UTM CRS): 14707741818.1113

So, in WGS84, GRASS is as close to Planimeter as most of the other GIS (that probably also use WGS84, "on the fly")...

curl https://gist.githubusercontent.com/kbevers/207b5bcb9be20e7554abe5f56742ec2c/raw/5bf6cd03bb1d03e86523f1602664567b4de8198e/ellipsoidal_area.geojson -o ellipsoidal_area.geojson

# In WGS84 location:
v.in.ogr input=/home/user/ellipsoidal_area.geojson layer=ellipsoidal_area output=area_test
v.to.db -p map=area_test option=area

# In UTM 33N location:
v.proj --overwrite location=wgs84 mapset=PERMANENT input=area_test smax=100 output=area_test
v.to.db -p map=area_test option=area

For those with special interest in historic discussion on area measurements in QGIS, see:
https://issues.qgis.org/issues/12057
(for example)

Cheers
Stefan

-----Original Message-----
From: grass-dev <grass-dev-bounces@lists.osgeo.org> On Behalf Of Helmut Kudrnovsky
Sent: tirsdag 25. september 2018 19:38
To: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
Subject: [GRASS-dev] area calculations in several GIS

fyi see
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/2018-September/054644.html

with GRASS mentioned
------------------
Kristian Evers:

Right, here are the calculated areas as returned by a number of different GIS applications and the planimeter app of GeographicLib for reference:

Caris LOTS: 14.737 km^2
ArcMap: 14.727,446 km^2
MapInfo: 14.727,352 km^2
GeoMedia: 14.726,443 km^2
Planimeter: 14.722,522 km^2
QGIS 3.2: 14.652,181 km^2
QGIS 2.8: 14.652,181 km^2

The polygon that I have used to get the numbers above can be found here:
https://gist.github.com/kbevers/207b5bcb9be20e7554abe5f56742ec2c

I am quite confident that GeographicLib delivers the most accurate result (if you have doubts, this reference [0] should convince you). As can be seen from the table above all but QGIS come fairly close. I expect some variation in the results as these are numerical approximations, although I think QGIS is too far of the mark. My suspicion is that the geodesic algorithm used by QGIS (and apparently GRASS) is to blame here.

/Kristian

[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1215.pdf
-----------------

-----
best regards
Helmut
--
Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grass-Dev-f3991897.html
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Here are GRASS area measures for the given geometry:
In WGS84: 14718097678.6716

tested here with winGRASS 7.7.svn in a wgs84 Location:

m2|km2
14718097678,673|14.718,097679

-----
best regards
Helmut
--
Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grass-Dev-f3991897.html

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 7:38 PM Helmut Kudrnovsky <hellik@web.de> wrote:

fyi see
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/2018-September/054644.html

with GRASS mentioned

Kristian Evers:

Right, here are the calculated areas as returned by a number of different
GIS applications and the planimeter app of GeographicLib for reference:

Caris LOTS: 14.737 km^2
ArcMap: 14.727,446 km^2
MapInfo: 14.727,352 km^2
GeoMedia: 14.726,443 km^2
Planimeter: 14.722,522 km^2
QGIS 3.2: 14.652,181 km^2
QGIS 2.8: 14.652,181 km^2

adding to the confusion:

I used the geographiclib API as included in PROJ 5.2.0 following the example for geod_polygonarea() in geodesic.h and get
geographiclib: 14,737.935 km^2

quite different from
Planimeter: 14,722.522 km^2

GRASS native gives 14,718.097679
as also reported by Helmut and Stefan

Markus M

The polygon that I have used to get the numbers above can be found here:
https://gist.github.com/kbevers/207b5bcb9be20e7554abe5f56742ec2c

I am quite confident that GeographicLib delivers the most accurate result
(if you have doubts, this reference [0] should convince you). As can be seen
from the table above all but QGIS come fairly close. I expect some variation
in the results as these are numerical approximations, although I think QGIS
is too far of the mark. My suspicion is that the geodesic algorithm used by
QGIS (and apparently GRASS) is to blame here.

/Kristian

[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1215.pdf


best regards
Helmut

Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grass-Dev-f3991897.html


grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Updated list with area calculations for
https://gist.github.com/kbevers/207b5bcb9be20e7554abe5f56742ec2c

PROJ [1]: 14,737.935 km^2
Caris LOTS: 14,737 km^2
ArcMap: 14,727.446 km^2
MapInfo: 14,727.352 km^2
GeoMedia: 14,726.443 km^2
Planimeter: 14,722.522 km^2
GRASS GIS: 14.718.098 km^2

EU LAEA [2]: 14,718.098 km^2
UTM 33 N: 14,707.742 km^2

QGIS 3.2: 14,652.181 km^2
QGIS 2.8: 14,652.181 km^2

[1] geodesic.h:geod_polygonarea()
[2] EPSG:3035

In this case, GRASS GIS provides the best match of geodesic area to metric area.

@Kristian: are the metric area measurements in “EU LAEA” and “UTM 33 N” suitable as reference?

Discussion started on
http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Re-Qgis-user-New-Features-in-Shape-Tools-3-2-0-td5378898.html

Markus M

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:56 PM Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 7:38 PM Helmut Kudrnovsky <hellik@web.de> wrote:

fyi see
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/2018-September/054644.html

with GRASS mentioned

Kristian Evers:

Right, here are the calculated areas as returned by a number of different
GIS applications and the planimeter app of GeographicLib for reference:

Caris LOTS: 14.737 km^2
ArcMap: 14.727,446 km^2
MapInfo: 14.727,352 km^2
GeoMedia: 14.726,443 km^2
Planimeter: 14.722,522 km^2
QGIS 3.2: 14.652,181 km^2
QGIS 2.8: 14.652,181 km^2

adding to the confusion:

I used the geographiclib API as included in PROJ 5.2.0 following the example for geod_polygonarea() in geodesic.h and get
geographiclib: 14,737.935 km^2

quite different from
Planimeter: 14,722.522 km^2

GRASS native gives 14,718.097679
as also reported by Helmut and Stefan

Markus M

The polygon that I have used to get the numbers above can be found here:
https://gist.github.com/kbevers/207b5bcb9be20e7554abe5f56742ec2c

I am quite confident that GeographicLib delivers the most accurate result
(if you have doubts, this reference [0] should convince you). As can be seen
from the table above all but QGIS come fairly close. I expect some variation
in the results as these are numerical approximations, although I think QGIS
is too far of the mark. My suspicion is that the geodesic algorithm used by
QGIS (and apparently GRASS) is to blame here.

/Kristian

[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1215.pdf


best regards
Helmut

Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grass-Dev-f3991897.html


grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:47 AM Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk> wrote:

Markus,

Thanks for extending the list. I do wonder why Planimeter gives different results than geod_polygonarea(). I’ll run that by Charles Karney when I get a chance.

for completeness, I used geod_polygonarea() from proj-5.2.0

Regarding areas in projected space: UTM is not area true, laea is but is instead scewing angles. You can check that stuff by running proj in very verbose mode.

[…]

So yes, the LAEA is the better choice of the two but it is never going to represent the true area, especially for large polygons, and I would not advice using it as reference for ellipsoidal area calculations.

The question is, what can be used as reference? And is the test polygon a “large” polygon, causing “large” deviations from the true area when measured in LAEA?

Markus M

/Kristian

Fra: Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com>
Sendt: 1. oktober 2018 23:22
Til: GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>; Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk>
Cc: Helmut Kudrnovsky <hellik@web.de>
Emne: Re: [GRASS-dev] area calculations in several GIS

Updated list with area calculations for

https://gist.github.com/kbevers/207b5bcb9be20e7554abe5f56742ec2c

PROJ [1]: 14,737.935 km^2
Caris LOTS: 14,737 km^2
ArcMap: 14,727.446 km^2
MapInfo: 14,727.352 km^2
GeoMedia: 14,726.443 km^2
Planimeter: 14,722.522 km^2
GRASS GIS: 14.718.098 km^2

EU LAEA [2]: 14,718.098 km^2
UTM 33 N: 14,707.742 km^2

QGIS 3.2: 14,652.181 km^2
QGIS 2.8: 14,652.181 km^2

[1] geodesic.h:geod_polygonarea()
[2] EPSG:3035

In this case, GRASS GIS provides the best match of geodesic area to metric area.

@Kristian: are the metric area measurements in “EU LAEA” and “UTM 33 N” suitable as reference?

Discussion started on

http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Re-Qgis-user-New-Features-in-Shape-Tools-3-2-0-td5378898.html

Markus M

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:56 PM Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 7:38 PM Helmut Kudrnovsky <hellik@web.de> wrote:

fyi see
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/2018-September/054644.html

with GRASS mentioned

Kristian Evers:

Right, here are the calculated areas as returned by a number of different
GIS applications and the planimeter app of GeographicLib for reference:

Caris LOTS: 14.737 km^2
ArcMap: 14.727,446 km^2
MapInfo: 14.727,352 km^2
GeoMedia: 14.726,443 km^2
Planimeter: 14.722,522 km^2
QGIS 3.2: 14.652,181 km^2
QGIS 2.8: 14.652,181 km^2

adding to the confusion:

I used the geographiclib API as included in PROJ 5.2.0 following the example for geod_polygonarea() in geodesic.h and get

geographiclib: 14,737.935 km^2

quite different from

Planimeter: 14,722.522 km^2

GRASS native gives 14,718.097679

as also reported by Helmut and Stefan

Markus M

The polygon that I have used to get the numbers above can be found here:
https://gist.github.com/kbevers/207b5bcb9be20e7554abe5f56742ec2c

I am quite confident that GeographicLib delivers the most accurate result
(if you have doubts, this reference [0] should convince you). As can be seen
from the table above all but QGIS come fairly close. I expect some variation
in the results as these are numerical approximations, although I think QGIS
is too far of the mark. My suspicion is that the geodesic algorithm used by
QGIS (and apparently GRASS) is to blame here.

/Kristian

[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1215.pdf


best regards
Helmut

Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grass-Dev-f3991897.html


grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 12:08 PM Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk> wrote:

Use GeographicLib/PROJ as the reference.

Which one? The results of Planimeter from GeographicLib and geod_polygonarea() from PROJ are different. If in doubt, use Planimeter as reference?

Markus M

I would say that this polygon is large, yes. If you want to get a better sense for what constitutes a large polygon in this sense, try creating a series of polygons of varying size (e.g. polygons of your house, your city, your county, your country and your continent) and calculate the area with both GRASS and GeographicLib. At some point the calculated areas should start to diverge significantly. I suspect it happens somewhere between county and country.

/Kristian

Fra: Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com>
Sendt: 2. oktober 2018 11:51
Til: Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk>
Cc: GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>; Helmut Kudrnovsky <hellik@web.de>
Emne: Re: [GRASS-dev] area calculations in several GIS

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:47 AM Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk> wrote:

Markus,

Thanks for extending the list. I do wonder why Planimeter gives different results than geod_polygonarea(). I’ll run that by Charles Karney when I get a chance.

for completeness, I used geod_polygonarea() from proj-5.2.0

Regarding areas in projected space: UTM is not area true, laea is but is instead scewing angles. You can check that stuff by running proj in very verbose mode.

[…]

So yes, the LAEA is the better choice of the two but it is never going to represent the true area, especially for large polygons, and I would not advice using it as reference for ellipsoidal area calculations.

The question is, what can be used as reference? And is the test polygon a “large” polygon, causing “large” deviations from the true area when measured in LAEA?

Markus M

/Kristian

Fra: Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com>
Sendt: 1. oktober 2018 23:22
Til: GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>; Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk>
Cc: Helmut Kudrnovsky <hellik@web.de>
Emne: Re: [GRASS-dev] area calculations in several GIS

Updated list with area calculations for

https://gist.github.com/kbevers/207b5bcb9be20e7554abe5f56742ec2c

PROJ [1]: 14,737.935 km^2
Caris LOTS: 14,737 km^2
ArcMap: 14,727.446 km^2
MapInfo: 14,727.352 km^2
GeoMedia: 14,726.443 km^2
Planimeter: 14,722.522 km^2
GRASS GIS: 14.718.098 km^2

EU LAEA [2]: 14,718.098 km^2
UTM 33 N: 14,707.742 km^2

QGIS 3.2: 14,652.181 km^2
QGIS 2.8: 14,652.181 km^2

[1] geodesic.h:geod_polygonarea()
[2] EPSG:3035

In this case, GRASS GIS provides the best match of geodesic area to metric area.

@Kristian: are the metric area measurements in “EU LAEA” and “UTM 33 N” suitable as reference?

Discussion started on

http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Re-Qgis-user-New-Features-in-Shape-Tools-3-2-0-td5378898.html

Markus M

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:56 PM Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 7:38 PM Helmut Kudrnovsky <hellik@web.de> wrote:

fyi see
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/2018-September/054644.html

with GRASS mentioned

Kristian Evers:

Right, here are the calculated areas as returned by a number of different
GIS applications and the planimeter app of GeographicLib for reference:

Caris LOTS: 14.737 km^2
ArcMap: 14.727,446 km^2
MapInfo: 14.727,352 km^2
GeoMedia: 14.726,443 km^2
Planimeter: 14.722,522 km^2
QGIS 3.2: 14.652,181 km^2
QGIS 2.8: 14.652,181 km^2

adding to the confusion:

I used the geographiclib API as included in PROJ 5.2.0 following the example for geod_polygonarea() in geodesic.h and get

geographiclib: 14,737.935 km^2

quite different from

Planimeter: 14,722.522 km^2

GRASS native gives 14,718.097679

as also reported by Helmut and Stefan

Markus M

The polygon that I have used to get the numbers above can be found here:
https://gist.github.com/kbevers/207b5bcb9be20e7554abe5f56742ec2c

I am quite confident that GeographicLib delivers the most accurate result
(if you have doubts, this reference [0] should convince you). As can be seen
from the table above all but QGIS come fairly close. I expect some variation
in the results as these are numerical approximations, although I think QGIS
is too far of the mark. My suspicion is that the geodesic algorithm used by
QGIS (and apparently GRASS) is to blame here.

/Kristian

[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1215.pdf


best regards
Helmut

Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grass-Dev-f3991897.html


grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

On 02/10/18 15:01, Markus Metz wrote:

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 12:08 PM Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk <mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk>> wrote:
>
> Use GeographicLib/PROJ as the reference.

Which one? The results of Planimeter from GeographicLib and geod_polygonarea() from PROJ are different. If in doubt, use Planimeter as reference?

I get the same result as PROJ using geosphere in R:

library(geosphere)
library(rgdal)
poly<-readOGR("ellipsoidal_area.geojson")
areaPolygon(poly)
[1] 14737935340

Exporting the coordinates using:

write.table(poly@polygons[[1]]@Polygons[[1]]@coords[,c(2,1)], "polygon.csv", row.names=FALSE)

and feeding them to Planimeter on my Debian testing machine (GeographicLib version 1.49), I get:

Planimeter -r --input-file polygon.csv
4017 503378.285237 14737935340.1

So, the result is strictly identical to the PROJ result.

I don't know where the below value of 14,722.522 km^2 comes from.

Moritz

Markus M

> I would say that this polygon is large, yes. If you want to get a better sense for what constitutes a large polygon in this sense, try creating a series of polygons of varying size (e.g. polygons of your house, your city, your county, your country and your continent) and calculate the area with both GRASS and GeographicLib. At some point the calculated areas should start to diverge significantly. I suspect it happens somewhere between county and country.
>
> /Kristian
>
> Fra: Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com <mailto:markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com>>
> Sendt: 2. oktober 2018 11:51
> Til: Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk <mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk>>
> Cc: GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>>; Helmut Kudrnovsky <hellik@web.de <mailto:hellik@web.de>>
> Emne: Re: [GRASS-dev] area calculations in several GIS
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:47 AM Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk <mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk>> wrote:
> >
> > Markus,
> >
> > Thanks for extending the list. I do wonder why Planimeter gives different results than geod_polygonarea(). I’ll run that by Charles Karney when I get a chance.
> >
>
> for completeness, I used geod_polygonarea() from proj-5.2.0
>
> >> Regarding areas in projected space: UTM is not area true, laea is but is instead scewing angles. You can check that stuff by running proj in very verbose mode.
> >
>
> [...]
>
> >
>
> > So yes, the LAEA is the better choice of the two but it is never going to represent the true area, especially for large polygons, and I would not advice using it as reference for ellipsoidal area calculations.
>
> The question is, what can be used as reference? And is the test polygon a "large" polygon, causing "large" deviations from the true area when measured in LAEA?
>
> Markus M
>
> >
>
> > /Kristian
> >
> > Fra: Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com <mailto:markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com>>
> > Sendt: 1. oktober 2018 23:22
> > Til: GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>>; Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk <mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk>>
> > Cc: Helmut Kudrnovsky <hellik@web.de <mailto:hellik@web.de>>
> > Emne: Re: [GRASS-dev] area calculations in several GIS
> >
> > Updated list with area calculations for
> >
> > https://gist.github.com/kbevers/207b5bcb9be20e7554abe5f56742ec2c
> >
> > PROJ [1]: 14,737.935 km^2
> > Caris LOTS: 14,737 km^2
> > ArcMap: 14,727.446 km^2
> > MapInfo: 14,727.352 km^2
> > GeoMedia: 14,726.443 km^2
> > Planimeter: 14,722.522 km^2
> > GRASS GIS: 14.718.098 km^2
> >
> > EU LAEA [2]: 14,718.098 km^2
> > UTM 33 N: 14,707.742 km^2
> >
> > QGIS 3.2: 14,652.181 km^2
> > QGIS 2.8: 14,652.181 km^2
> >
> > [1] geodesic.h:geod_polygonarea()
> > [2] EPSG:3035
> >
> > In this case, GRASS GIS provides the best match of geodesic area to metric area.
> >
> > @Kristian: are the metric area measurements in "EU LAEA" and "UTM 33 N" suitable as reference?
> >
> > Discussion started on
> >
> > http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Re-Qgis-user-New-Features-in-Shape-Tools-3-2-0-td5378898.html
> >
> > Markus M
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:56 PM Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com <mailto:markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 7:38 PM Helmut Kudrnovsky <hellik@web.de <mailto:hellik@web.de>> wrote:
> > >
> > > fyi see
> > > https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/2018-September/054644.html
> > >
> > > with GRASS mentioned
> > > ------------------
> > > Kristian Evers:
> > >
> > > Right, here are the calculated areas as returned by a number of different
> > > GIS applications and the planimeter app of GeographicLib for reference:
> > >
> > > Caris LOTS: 14.737 km^2
> > > ArcMap: 14.727,446 km^2
> > > MapInfo: 14.727,352 km^2
> > > GeoMedia: 14.726,443 km^2
> > > Planimeter: 14.722,522 km^2
> > > QGIS 3.2: 14.652,181 km^2
> > > QGIS 2.8: 14.652,181 km^2
> >
> > adding to the confusion:
> >
> > I used the geographiclib API as included in PROJ 5.2.0 following the example for geod_polygonarea() in geodesic.h and get
> >
> > geographiclib: 14,737.935 km^2
> >
> > quite different from
> >
> > Planimeter: 14,722.522 km^2
> >
> > GRASS native gives 14,718.097679
> >
> > as also reported by Helmut and Stefan
> >
> > Markus M
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The polygon that I have used to get the numbers above can be found here:
> > > https://gist.github.com/kbevers/207b5bcb9be20e7554abe5f56742ec2c
> > >
> > > I am quite confident that GeographicLib delivers the most accurate result
> > > (if you have doubts, this reference [0] should convince you). As can be seen
> > > from the table above all but QGIS come fairly close. I expect some variation
> > > in the results as these are numerical approximations, although I think QGIS
> > > is too far of the mark. My suspicion is that the geodesic algorithm used by
> > > QGIS (and apparently GRASS) is to blame here.
> > >
> > > /Kristian
> > >
> > > [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1215.pdf
> > > -----------------
> > >
> > > -----
> > > best regards
> > > Helmut
> > > --
> > > Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grass-Dev-f3991897.html
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > grass-dev mailing list
> > > grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>
> > > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:30 PM Charles Karney <charles@karney.com> wrote:

Sorry, I’m coming late to this conversation. The area of the polygon
in the Baltic Sea posted by Kristian is

14737935340.098511 m^2

assuming the WGS84 ellipsoid. This is accurate to 1 square-mm and was
obtained with the MPFR-enabled version of GeographicLib’s Planimeter.

This is consistent with the result reported by the PROJ.4
geod_polygonarea() and it agrees with the result I get with the regular
Planimeter utility. I don’t why someone else is getting a different

result from Planimeter.

I can confirm this, the results of Planimeter and PROJ 5.2.0 are identical.

Some more confusion:

I created simple boxes for the test polygon, one a bit larger, one a bit smaller than the test polygon

GRASS: 13,222.778
Planimeter: 13,221.965
geod_polygonarea(): 13,221.965

14.62569 55.36254
14.6256944444444 54.0786
17.1177 54.0786111111111
17.1177777777778 55.3625

GRASS: 22,950.510
Planimeter: 22,946.901
geod_polygonarea(): 22,946.901

GRASS native geodesic area is not too far off from GeographicLib/PROJ

With the test polygon
Planimeter/PROJ: 14,737.935 km^2
GRASS GIS: 14.718.098 km^2

GRASS is much farther off, and here smaller instead of larger than Planimeter/PROJ.

I will have a look.

Markus M

It’s probably operator error – but who knows?

–Charles

On 10/2/18 10:08 AM, Kristian Evers wrote:

Sorry, I don’t know. It’s possible there’s a bug somewhere.

Charles, do you have any insights here?

/Kristian

*Fra:*Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com>
Sendt: 2. oktober 2018 15:01
Til: Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk>
Cc: GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>; Helmut
Kudrnovsky <hellik@web.de>
Emne: Re: [GRASS-dev] area calculations in several GIS

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 12:08 PM Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk
mailto:[kreve@sdfe.dk](mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk)> wrote:

Use GeographicLib/PROJ as the reference.

Which one? The results of Planimeter from GeographicLib and
geod_polygonarea() from PROJ are different. If in doubt, use Planimeter
as reference?

Markus M

I would say that this polygon is large, yes. If you want to get a
better sense for what constitutes a large polygon in this sense, try
creating a series of polygons of varying size (e.g. polygons of your
house, your city, your county, your country and your continent) and
calculate the area with both GRASS and GeographicLib. At some point the
calculated areas should start to diverge significantly. I suspect it
happens somewhere between county and country.

/Kristian

Fra: Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com
mailto:[markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com](mailto:markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com)>
Sendt: 2. oktober 2018 11:51
Til: Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk mailto:[kreve@sdfe.dk](mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk)>
Cc: GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
mailto:[grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org](mailto:grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org)>; Helmut Kudrnovsky <hellik@web.de
mailto:[hellik@web.de](mailto:hellik@web.de)>
Emne: Re: [GRASS-dev] area calculations in several GIS

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:47 AM Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk
mailto:[kreve@sdfe.dk](mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk)> wrote:

Markus,

Thanks for extending the list. I do wonder why Planimeter gives
different results than geod_polygonarea(). I’ll run that by Charles
Karney when I get a chance.

for completeness, I used geod_polygonarea() from proj-5.2.0

Regarding areas in projected space: UTM is not area true, laea is
but is instead scewing angles. You can check that stuff by running proj
in very verbose mode.

[…]

So yes, the LAEA is the better choice of the two but it is never
going to represent the true area, especially for large polygons, and I
would not advice using it as reference for ellipsoidal area calculations.

The question is, what can be used as reference? And is the test
polygon a “large” polygon, causing “large” deviations from the true area
when measured in LAEA?

Markus M

/Kristian

Fra: Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com
mailto:[markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com](mailto:markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com)>
Sendt: 1. oktober 2018 23:22
Til: GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
mailto:[grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org](mailto:grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org)>; Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk
mailto:[kreve@sdfe.dk](mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk)>
Cc: Helmut Kudrnovsky <hellik@web.de mailto:[hellik@web.de](mailto:hellik@web.de)>
Emne: Re: [GRASS-dev] area calculations in several GIS

Updated list with area calculations for

https://gist.github.com/kbevers/207b5bcb9be20e7554abe5f56742ec2c

PROJ [1]: 14,737.935 km^2
Caris LOTS: 14,737 km^2
ArcMap: 14,727.446 km^2
MapInfo: 14,727.352 km^2
GeoMedia: 14,726.443 km^2
Planimeter: 14,722.522 km^2
GRASS GIS: 14.718.098 km^2

EU LAEA [2]: 14,718.098 km^2
UTM 33 N: 14,707.742 km^2

QGIS 3.2: 14,652.181 km^2
QGIS 2.8: 14,652.181 km^2

[1] geodesic.h:geod_polygonarea()
[2] EPSG:3035

In this case, GRASS GIS provides the best match of geodesic area to
metric area.

@Kristian: are the metric area measurements in “EU LAEA” and “UTM
33 N” suitable as reference?

Discussion started on

http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Re-Qgis-user-New-Features-in-Shape-Tools-3-2-0-td5378898.html

Markus M

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:56 PM Markus Metz
<markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com mailto:[markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com](mailto:markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com)>
wrote:

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 7:38 PM Helmut Kudrnovsky <hellik@web.de
mailto:[hellik@web.de](mailto:hellik@web.de)> wrote:

fyi see

https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/2018-September/054644.html

with GRASS mentioned

Kristian Evers:

Right, here are the calculated areas as returned by a number of
different
GIS applications and the planimeter app of GeographicLib for
reference:

Caris LOTS: 14.737 km^2
ArcMap: 14.727,446 km^2
MapInfo: 14.727,352 km^2
GeoMedia: 14.726,443 km^2
Planimeter: 14.722,522 km^2
QGIS 3.2: 14.652,181 km^2
QGIS 2.8: 14.652,181 km^2

adding to the confusion:

I used the geographiclib API as included in PROJ 5.2.0 following
the example for geod_polygonarea() in geodesic.h and get

geographiclib: 14,737.935 km^2

quite different from

Planimeter: 14,722.522 km^2

GRASS native gives 14,718.097679

as also reported by Helmut and Stefan

Markus M

The polygon that I have used to get the numbers above can be
found here:
https://gist.github.com/kbevers/207b5bcb9be20e7554abe5f56742ec2c

I am quite confident that GeographicLib delivers the most
accurate result
(if you have doubts, this reference [0] should convince you). As
can be seen
from the table above all but QGIS come fairly close. I expect
some variation
in the results as these are numerical approximations, although I
think QGIS
is too far of the mark. My suspicion is that the geodesic
algorithm used by
QGIS (and apparently GRASS) is to blame here.

/Kristian

[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1215.pdf


best regards
Helmut

Sent from:
http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grass-Dev-f3991897.html


grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org mailto:[grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org](mailto:grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org)
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev


Charles Karney <charles@karney.com>
Princeton, NJ

for the record in the ML see below

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gesendet: Dienstag, 02. Oktober 2018 um 19:30 Uhr
Von: "Charles Karney" <>
An: "Kristian Evers" <>, "Markus Metz" <>
Cc: "GRASS developers list" <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>, "Helmut Kudrnovsky" >
Betreff: Re: SV: [GRASS-dev] area calculations in several GIS

Sorry, I'm coming late to this conversation. The area of the polygon
in the Baltic Sea posted by Kristian is

14737935340.098511 m^2

assuming the WGS84 ellipsoid. This is accurate to 1 square-mm and was
obtained with the MPFR-enabled version of GeographicLib's Planimeter.

This is consistent with the result reported by the PROJ.4
geod_polygonarea() and it agrees with the result I get with the regular
Planimeter utility. I don't why someone else is getting a different
result from Planimeter. It's probably operator error -- but who knows?

--Charles

On 10/2/18 10:08 AM, Kristian Evers wrote:

Sorry, I don’t know. It’s possible there’s a bug somewhere.

Charles, do you have any insights here?

/Kristian

*Fra:*Markus Metz
*Sendt:* 2. oktober 2018 15:01
*Til:* Kristian Evers
*Cc:* GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>; Helmut
Kudrnovsky
*Emne:* Re: [GRASS-dev] area calculations in several GIS

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 12:08 PM Kristian Evers wrote:
>

> Use GeographicLib/PROJ as the reference.

Which one? The results of Planimeter from GeographicLib and
geod_polygonarea() from PROJ are different. If in doubt, use Planimeter
as reference?

Markus M

> I would say that this polygon is large, yes. If you want to get a
better sense for what constitutes a large polygon in this sense, try
creating a series of polygons of varying size (e.g. polygons of your
house, your city, your county, your country and your continent) and
calculate the area with both GRASS and GeographicLib. At some point the
calculated areas should start to diverge significantly. I suspect it
happens somewhere between county and country.

>
>
>
> /Kristian
>

--
Charles Karney <charles@karney.com>
Princeton, NJ

for the record to the ML, see below

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gesendet: Dienstag, 02. Oktober 2018 um 22:45 Uhr
Von: "Charles Karney"
An: "Markus Metz"
Cc: "Kristian Evers", "GRASS developers list" <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>, "Helmut Kudrnovsky"
Betreff: Re: SV: [GRASS-dev] area calculations in several GIS
In comparisons like this, it's probably a good idea to document what
areas the various packages are attempting to compute.

For Planimeter/geod_polygonarea, it is the area of a polygon with edges
given by geodesics.

For GRASS/QGIS, it is the area of a polygon with edges which are
straight lines in the plate-carree projection.

The documentation for GRASS (in lib/gis/area_poly1.c) suggests that this
calculation is a poor man's attempt to compute the area of a polygon
with edges given by rhumb lines.

In fact, the mathematics for computing the area of rhumb polygons is
straightforward, see

https://geographiclib.sourceforge.io/html/rhumb.html#rhumbarea

and GeographicLib's Planimeter utility can perform such calculations
(with the -R flag). For Kristian's sample polygon we have

geodesic area = 14737935340.10 m^2
rhumb area = 14722522188.60 m^2

This explains the apparent discrepancy between Planimeter and
geod_polygonarea reported earlier. The figure given for Planimeter was
the rhumb area.

I recommend that GRASS/QGIS be updated either to compute the area of
either geodesic or rhumb polygons. Surely plate-carree polygons are not
useful?

--Charles

On 10/2/18 1:55 PM, Markus Metz wrote:

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:30 PM Charles Karney wrote:
>
> Sorry, I'm coming late to this conversation. The area of the polygon
> in the Baltic Sea posted by Kristian is
>
> 14737935340.098511 m^2
>
> assuming the WGS84 ellipsoid. This is accurate to 1 square-mm and was
> obtained with the MPFR-enabled version of GeographicLib's Planimeter.
>
> This is consistent with the result reported by the PROJ.4
> geod_polygonarea() and it agrees with the result I get with the regular
> Planimeter utility. I don't why someone else is getting a different
> result from Planimeter.

I can confirm this, the results of Planimeter and PROJ 5.2.0 are identical.

Some more confusion:

I created simple boxes for the test polygon, one a bit larger, one a bit
smaller than the test polygon

GRASS: 13,222.778
Planimeter: 13,221.965
geod_polygonarea(): 13,221.965

14.62569 55.36254
14.6256944444444 54.0786
17.1177 54.0786111111111
17.1177777777778 55.3625

GRASS: 22,950.510
Planimeter: 22,946.901
geod_polygonarea(): 22,946.901

GRASS native geodesic area is not too far off from GeographicLib/PROJ

With the test polygon
Planimeter/PROJ: 14,737.935 km^2
GRASS GIS: 14.718.098 km^2

GRASS is much farther off, and here smaller instead of larger than
Planimeter/PROJ.

I will have a look.

Markus M

> It's probably operator error -- but who knows?
>
> --Charles

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 8:58 AM Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk> wrote:

Thanks for clearing up the confusion, Charles! Looking back in the thread
it seem to have been me who supplied the rhumb line calculation. I guess
that comes down to a cut’n’paste mishap. I’m glad we got to the bottom
of this finally.

I’ll also recommend that GRASS and QGIS switch to using either geodesic
or rhumb line area determination. Or even better, offer the ability to
choose various method of calculating areas. Several of the GIS applications
I ran my test polygon through had such features and it did give me a bit
more confidence in those calculations since it was clear what it was doing

(albeit not as accurately as I would like in most cases).

GRASS is already using PROJ, thus it would be easy for GRASS to make use of geodesic.[h|c] as included in PROJ. IMHO, we should not reinvent the wheel for GRASS.

Out of curiosity, I found that the polygon size does not matter much with simple polygons. The number of vertices has a much larger influence: results diverge with an increasing number of vertices, results of geod_polygonarea() become larger than GRASS native area size which stays relatively constant. Is there an easy explanation for this divergence increasing with the number of vertices?

Markus M

/Kristian

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Charles Karney <charles.karney@gmail.com> På vegne af Charles Karney
Sendt: 2. oktober 2018 22:46
Til: Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com>
Cc: Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk>; GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>; Helmut Kudrnovsky <hellik@web.de>
Emne: Re: SV: [GRASS-dev] area calculations in several GIS

In comparisons like this, it’s probably a good idea to document what
areas the various packages are attempting to compute.

For Planimeter/geod_polygonarea, it is the area of a polygon with edges
given by geodesics.

For GRASS/QGIS, it is the area of a polygon with edges which are
straight lines in the plate-carree projection.

The documentation for GRASS (in lib/gis/area_poly1.c) suggests that this
calculation is a poor man’s attempt to compute the area of a polygon
with edges given by rhumb lines.

In fact, the mathematics for computing the area of rhumb polygons is
straightforward, see

https://geographiclib.sourceforge.io/html/rhumb.html#rhumbarea

and GeographicLib’s Planimeter utility can perform such calculations
(with the -R flag). For Kristian’s sample polygon we have

geodesic area = 14737935340.10 m^2
rhumb area = 14722522188.60 m^2

This explains the apparent discrepancy between Planimeter and
geod_polygonarea reported earlier. The figure given for Planimeter was
the rhumb area.

I recommend that GRASS/QGIS be updated either to compute the area of
either geodesic or rhumb polygons. Surely plate-carree polygons are not
useful?

–Charles

On 10/2/18 1:55 PM, Markus Metz wrote:

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:30 PM Charles Karney <charles@karney.com
mailto:[charles@karney.com](mailto:charles@karney.com)> wrote:

Sorry, I’m coming late to this conversation. The area of the polygon
in the Baltic Sea posted by Kristian is

14737935340.098511 m^2

assuming the WGS84 ellipsoid. This is accurate to 1 square-mm and was
obtained with the MPFR-enabled version of GeographicLib’s Planimeter.

This is consistent with the result reported by the PROJ.4
geod_polygonarea() and it agrees with the result I get with the regular
Planimeter utility. I don’t why someone else is getting a different
result from Planimeter.

I can confirm this, the results of Planimeter and PROJ 5.2.0 are identical.

Some more confusion:

I created simple boxes for the test polygon, one a bit larger, one a bit
smaller than the test polygon

GRASS: 13,222.778
Planimeter: 13,221.965
geod_polygonarea(): 13,221.965

14.62569 55.36254
14.6256944444444 54.0786
17.1177 54.0786111111111
17.1177777777778 55.3625

GRASS: 22,950.510
Planimeter: 22,946.901
geod_polygonarea(): 22,946.901

GRASS native geodesic area is not too far off from GeographicLib/PROJ

With the test polygon
Planimeter/PROJ: 14,737.935 km^2
GRASS GIS: 14.718.098 km^2

GRASS is much farther off, and here smaller instead of larger than
Planimeter/PROJ.

I will have a look.

Markus M

It’s probably operator error – but who knows?

–Charles

On 10/2/18 10:08 AM, Kristian Evers wrote:

Sorry, I don’t know. It’s possible there’s a bug somewhere.

Charles, do you have any insights here?

/Kristian

*Fra:*Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com
mailto:[markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com](mailto:markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com)>
Sendt: 2. oktober 2018 15:01
Til: Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk mailto:[kreve@sdfe.dk](mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk)>
Cc: GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
mailto:[grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org](mailto:grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org)>; Helmut
Kudrnovsky <hellik@web.de mailto:[hellik@web.de](mailto:hellik@web.de)>
Emne: Re: [GRASS-dev] area calculations in several GIS

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 12:08 PM Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk
mailto:[kreve@sdfe.dk](mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk)
<mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk mailto:[kreve@sdfe.dk](mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk)>> wrote:

Use GeographicLib/PROJ as the reference.

Which one? The results of Planimeter from GeographicLib and
geod_polygonarea() from PROJ are different. If in doubt, use Planimeter
as reference?

Markus M

I would say that this polygon is large, yes. If you want to get a
better sense for what constitutes a large polygon in this sense, try
creating a series of polygons of varying size (e.g. polygons of your
house, your city, your county, your country and your continent) and
calculate the area with both GRASS and GeographicLib. At some point the
calculated areas should start to diverge significantly. I suspect it
happens somewhere between county and country.

/Kristian

Fra: Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com
mailto:[markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com](mailto:markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com)
<mailto:markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com
mailto:[markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com](mailto:markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com)>>
Sendt: 2. oktober 2018 11:51
Til: Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk mailto:[kreve@sdfe.dk](mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk)
<mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk mailto:[kreve@sdfe.dk](mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk)>>
Cc: GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
mailto:[grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org](mailto:grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org)
<mailto:grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
mailto:[grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org](mailto:grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org)>>; Helmut Kudrnovsky <hellik@web.de
mailto:[hellik@web.de](mailto:hellik@web.de)
<mailto:hellik@web.de mailto:[hellik@web.de](mailto:hellik@web.de)>>
Emne: Re: [GRASS-dev] area calculations in several GIS

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:47 AM Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk
mailto:[kreve@sdfe.dk](mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk)
<mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk mailto:[kreve@sdfe.dk](mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk)>> wrote:

Markus,

Thanks for extending the list. I do wonder why Planimeter gives
different results than geod_polygonarea(). I’ll run that by Charles
Karney when I get a chance.

for completeness, I used geod_polygonarea() from proj-5.2.0

Regarding areas in projected space: UTM is not area true, laea is
but is instead scewing angles. You can check that stuff by running proj
in very verbose mode.

[…]

So yes, the LAEA is the better choice of the two but it is never
going to represent the true area, especially for large polygons, and I
would not advice using it as reference for ellipsoidal area
calculations.

The question is, what can be used as reference? And is the test
polygon a “large” polygon, causing “large” deviations from the true
area
when measured in LAEA?

Markus M

/Kristian

Fra: Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com
mailto:[markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com](mailto:markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com)
<mailto:markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com
mailto:[markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com](mailto:markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com)>>
Sendt: 1. oktober 2018 23:22
Til: GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
mailto:[grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org](mailto:grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org)
<mailto:grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
mailto:[grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org](mailto:grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org)>>; Kristian Evers <kreve@sdfe.dk
mailto:[kreve@sdfe.dk](mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk)
<mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk mailto:[kreve@sdfe.dk](mailto:kreve@sdfe.dk)>>
Cc: Helmut Kudrnovsky <hellik@web.de mailto:[hellik@web.de](mailto:hellik@web.de)
<mailto:hellik@web.de mailto:[hellik@web.de](mailto:hellik@web.de)>>
Emne: Re: [GRASS-dev] area calculations in several GIS

Updated list with area calculations for

https://gist.github.com/kbevers/207b5bcb9be20e7554abe5f56742ec2c

PROJ [1]: 14,737.935 km^2
Caris LOTS: 14,737 km^2
ArcMap: 14,727.446 km^2
MapInfo: 14,727.352 km^2
GeoMedia: 14,726.443 km^2
Planimeter: 14,722.522 km^2
GRASS GIS: 14.718.098 km^2

EU LAEA [2]: 14,718.098 km^2
UTM 33 N: 14,707.742 km^2

QGIS 3.2: 14,652.181 km^2
QGIS 2.8: 14,652.181 km^2

[1] geodesic.h:geod_polygonarea()
[2] EPSG:3035

In this case, GRASS GIS provides the best match of geodesic
area to
metric area.

@Kristian: are the metric area measurements in “EU LAEA” and “UTM
33 N” suitable as reference?

Discussion started on

http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Re-Qgis-user-New-Features-in-Shape-Tools-3-2-0-td5378898.html

Markus M

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:56 PM Markus Metz
<markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com
mailto:[markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com](mailto:markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com)
<mailto:markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com
mailto:[markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com](mailto:markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com)>>
wrote:

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 7:38 PM Helmut Kudrnovsky
<hellik@web.de mailto:[hellik@web.de](mailto:hellik@web.de)
<mailto:hellik@web.de mailto:[hellik@web.de](mailto:hellik@web.de)>> wrote:

fyi see

https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/2018-September/054644.html

with GRASS mentioned

Kristian Evers:

Right, here are the calculated areas as returned by a number of
different
GIS applications and the planimeter app of GeographicLib for
reference:

Caris LOTS: 14.737 km^2
ArcMap: 14.727,446 km^2
MapInfo: 14.727,352 km^2
GeoMedia: 14.726,443 km^2
Planimeter: 14.722,522 km^2
QGIS 3.2: 14.652,181 km^2
QGIS 2.8: 14.652,181 km^2

adding to the confusion:

I used the geographiclib API as included in PROJ 5.2.0 following
the example for geod_polygonarea() in geodesic.h and get

geographiclib: 14,737.935 km^2

quite different from

Planimeter: 14,722.522 km^2

GRASS native gives 14,718.097679

as also reported by Helmut and Stefan

Markus M

The polygon that I have used to get the numbers above can be
found here:
https://gist.github.com/kbevers/207b5bcb9be20e7554abe5f56742ec2c

I am quite confident that GeographicLib delivers the most
accurate result
(if you have doubts, this reference [0] should convince you). As
can be seen
from the table above all but QGIS come fairly close. I expect
some variation
in the results as these are numerical approximations, although I
think QGIS
is too far of the mark. My suspicion is that the geodesic
algorithm used by
QGIS (and apparently GRASS) is to blame here.

/Kristian

[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1215.pdf


best regards
Helmut

Sent from:
http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grass-Dev-f3991897.html


grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org mailto:[grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org](mailto:grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org)
<mailto:grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org mailto:[grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org](mailto:grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org)>
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev