<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Differences between EPSG 4170 and EPSG 4674 in Coordinate Reference Systems Questions</title>
    <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/coordinate-reference-systems-questions/differences-between-epsg-4170-and-epsg-4674/m-p/857452#M1546</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm currently creating a spatial database using Oracle Spatial and it lists both EPSG 4170 and EPSG 4674 as SIRGAS for SDO_GEOMETRY type.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The problem is when I try to transform from WGS 84 (EPSG 4326) to SIRGAS. If my table is defined as EPSG 4674, I get an error about different dimensions. If my table is defined as EPSG 4170, the transformation works.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Because of that, all my tables metadata are currently defined as EPSG 4170.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;But what are the differences between EPSG 4170 and 4674? Should I expect any displacement by storing data defined as 4674 in 4170 without transforming it?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:55:39 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>BrunoMendes</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-01-10T15:55:39Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Differences between EPSG 4170 and EPSG 4674</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/coordinate-reference-systems-questions/differences-between-epsg-4170-and-epsg-4674/m-p/857452#M1546</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm currently creating a spatial database using Oracle Spatial and it lists both EPSG 4170 and EPSG 4674 as SIRGAS for SDO_GEOMETRY type.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The problem is when I try to transform from WGS 84 (EPSG 4326) to SIRGAS. If my table is defined as EPSG 4674, I get an error about different dimensions. If my table is defined as EPSG 4170, the transformation works.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Because of that, all my tables metadata are currently defined as EPSG 4170.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;But what are the differences between EPSG 4170 and 4674? Should I expect any displacement by storing data defined as 4674 in 4170 without transforming it?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:55:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/coordinate-reference-systems-questions/differences-between-epsg-4170-and-epsg-4674/m-p/857452#M1546</guid>
      <dc:creator>BrunoMendes</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-01-10T15:55:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Differences between EPSG 4170 and EPSG 4674</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/coordinate-reference-systems-questions/differences-between-epsg-4170-and-epsg-4674/m-p/857453#M1547</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;According to EPSG..&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Wkid 4674 is called SIRGAS2000 (and uses the ITRF200 epoch).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;4170 is called SIRGAS1995 (and uses ITRF 1994).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would say that both are "functionally equivalent" to WGS84.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Unless your data is extraordinarily accurate, I don't think you will see any miss-alignment between them.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:46:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/coordinate-reference-systems-questions/differences-between-epsg-4170-and-epsg-4674/m-p/857453#M1547</guid>
      <dc:creator>NeilAyres</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-01-10T16:46:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

