I currently working on the data set "Wolfcamp Aquifer", but the coordinates in the data set is just a relative coordinates. So, is there anyone who has the original coordinates?
1 Answers
I found a map of the locations in an ICOTS8 (2010) Invited Paper by Harper & Clark called "AMARILLO BY MORNING: DATA VISUALIZATION IN GEOSTATISTICS" - you can probably search online and find this. I extracted the image, and georeferenced it in QGIS.
Then I identified a few of the sample locations on the map and got their lat-long coordinates. I then matched those up to the "relative" coordinates from the data set in R. So now I have a table of:
x_lat y_lat x_relative y_relative
coordinates for seven of the points. I can then run ogr2ogr on the command line using the coordinate pairs as control points - it looks like this:
ogr2ogr \
-tps \
-gcp -233.72172 -115.83894 -11636657 4003094 \
-gcp -30.54492 115.72629 -11392916 4286809 \
-gcp 133.79896 95.12698 -11190784 4260256 \
-gcp 174.71182 -27.48198 -11143259 4107547 \
-gcp 18.74859 -130.78953 -11331381 3985634 \
-gcp -29.96271 -37.89631 -11391316 4099389 \
-gcp 169.09138 51.54656 -11147872 4205489 \
-f "ESRI shapefile" wcreftps.shp wc.shp
On each gcp option, the first two numbers are the "relative" coordinates, and the second two are in EPSG:3857 (Google Mercator). wc.shp is the R data saved to a shapefile.
After running this, the shapefile wcreftps.shp seems geolocated correctly - here it is with an OpenStreetMap and county boundaries.
The coordinates, in the same order as the 85 coordinates in the wolfcamp object in the R geoR package, are in this pastebin:
Caveat: These coordinates are as precise as my clicking on the map - they are not the original measured coordinates but should be close enough for most purposes that use the whole map - don't zoom in on one point and expect to see the exact location.
- 63,755
- 5
- 81
- 115
-
Wow...................Thank you so much .............It's amazing..I'm new to this field, your answer is really helpful. – Nicolas Apr 15 '18 at 22:06
-
-
I may try and compare the coordinates I got from this with the ones I got from the original paper (linked in my comment to the question). – Spacedman Apr 16 '18 at 07:23
-
I think they didn't give the exact coordinates in their original paper, right? – Nicolas Apr 16 '18 at 19:38
-
The paper I link in the comments gives both lat-long and offset-in-miles from a point coordinates. I'm not sure how "exact" these coordinates are, plus the lat-long appear to be in a 1958 military coordinate system and I can't find the technical manual online so I don't exactly know the coordinate transform parameters to get from that to EPSG:4326. – Spacedman Apr 16 '18 at 20:44
-
And I've now completed OCRing and correcting the "relative" coordinates from the paper and there is definitely a wrong location point in the
geoRdata set. Once I've tidied things up I might report it. – Spacedman Apr 18 '18 at 16:14 -
@Spacedman I get rather good results with
+proj=tmerc +lat_0=0 +lon_0=-102 +datum=NAD83 +x_0=0 +y_0=-3696553 +k=0.9996 +units=us-mi +no_defsexcept for pointROO-014which is off by -2,29437 miles in x. Might be a typo. – AndreJ Apr 18 '18 at 18:56 -
There's definitely one point, the 49th, that is way off in the geoR dataset compared to the data in the paper. In the wrong county. – Spacedman Apr 18 '18 at 21:30
-
-

geoRpackage shows one point clearly not in the same place as the map from the paper. Whether there's a transcription error in the original map from the original data or from the data to geoR I do not yet know... – Spacedman Apr 16 '18 at 15:19