Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
Visit Stack Exchange
Stack Internal
Knowledge at work
Bring the best of human thought and AI automation together at your work.
Explore Stack InternalThe definition of north and southeast are pretty straight forward to grasp but only becomes difficult when used interchangably with x-y coordinates which have varying definitions for the direction of the axes. In Mathematics y was always vertical and x was always horizontal so logically I would assume that "up" == "northing" == "y" and "along" == "easting" == "x".
Why is this not the case in GIS?
The definition of north and south are pretty straight forward to grasp but only becomes difficult when used interchangably with x-y coordinates which have varying definitions for the direction of the axes. In Mathematics y was always vertical and x was always horizontal so logically I would assume that "up" == "northing" == "y" and "along" == "easting" == "x".
Why is this not the case in GIS?
The definition of north and east are pretty straight forward to grasp but only becomes difficult when used interchangably with x-y coordinates which have varying definitions for the direction of the axes. In Mathematics y was always vertical and x was always horizontal so logically I would assume that "up" == "northing" == "y" and "along" == "easting" == "x".
Why is this not the case in GIS?
The definition of north and south are pretty straight forward to grasp but only becomes difficult when used interchangably with x-y coordinates which have varying definitions for the direction of the achsesaxes. In Mathematics y was always vertical and x was always horizontal so logically I would assume that "up" == "northing" == "y" and "along" == "easting" == "x".
Why is this not the case in GIS?
The definition of north and south are pretty straight forward to grasp but only becomes difficult when used interchangably with x-y coordinates which have varying definitions for the direction of the achses. In Mathematics y was always vertical and x was always horizontal so logically I would assume that "up" == "northing" == "y" and "along" == "easting" == "x".
Why is this not the case in GIS?
The definition of north and south are pretty straight forward to grasp but only becomes difficult when used interchangably with x-y coordinates which have varying definitions for the direction of the axes. In Mathematics y was always vertical and x was always horizontal so logically I would assume that "up" == "northing" == "y" and "along" == "easting" == "x".
Why is this not the case in GIS?
The definition of north and south are pretty straight forward to grasp but only becomes difficult when used interchangably with x-y coordinates which have varying definitions for the direction of the achses. In Mathematics xy was always vertical and yx was always horizontal so logically I would assume that "up" == "northing" == "x""y" and "along" == "easting" == "y""x".
Why is this not the case in GIS?
The definition of north and south are pretty straight forward to grasp but only becomes difficult when used interchangably with x-y coordinates which have varying definitions for the direction of the achses. In Mathematics x was always vertical and y was always horizontal so logically I would assume that "up" == "northing" == "x" and "along" == "easting" == "y".
Why is this not the case in GIS?
The definition of north and south are pretty straight forward to grasp but only becomes difficult when used interchangably with x-y coordinates which have varying definitions for the direction of the achses. In Mathematics y was always vertical and x was always horizontal so logically I would assume that "up" == "northing" == "y" and "along" == "easting" == "x".
Why is this not the case in GIS?
