Select to view content in your preferred language

which Coordinate Reference System (CRS) and/or Projection?

7268
10
Jump to solution
02-26-2016 08:14 AM
RickCheney
Frequent Contributor

The images of below are from my map and from another online topo map.  ​A​ll the maps I have checked ​show ​Rose Island ​long and skinny like it does in ​the​ first ​​map​ below​. I think the Coordinate Reference System (CRS) or the Projection on my map is not correct.  I am using ArcMap   If I change the CRS, to UTM NAD 83 Zone 15, then Rose Island will look like it does on ​the ​first map​, however, the data source ​says that the CRS for the data is:  NAD83 (EPSG:4269)  EPSG   which is what my map is set to. 

​​ArcMap shows my Data Frame and my vector data layers as below:

GCS_North_American_1983

WKID: 4269 Authority: EPSG

Angular Unit: Degree (0.0174532925199433)

Prime Meridian: Greenwich (0.0)

Datum: D_North_American_1983

  Spheroid: GRS_1980

    Semimajor Axis: 6378137.0

    Semiminor Axis: 6356752.314140356

    Inverse Flattening: 298.257222101

I would think that the information supplied with the vector data specifying the CRS would be correct but the shape doesn't seem right.

I assume all the online and printed maps that I have checked are displaying Rose Island in the correct long and skinny shape.  Should I change the CRS on my map to make the Island look the way it does on other maps?

Also, I am new at this and I'm not sure what the difference is between CRS and "Projection" are they the same?  Or, maybe I have the CRS correct and the Projection wrong?

           All the printed and online maps that I checked show Rose Island as below.

unnamed.jpg

         Below is my map with CRS GCS_North_American_1983 WKID: 4269 Authority: EPSG

mymap.jpg

0 Kudos
10 Replies
RickCheney
Frequent Contributor

Thank you Dan and Melita for all your help.  I think the problem is that there is a small part of the map that

is based on a different coordinate system.  I will look for different data. I used the Define Projection tool to make all the layers 4269, as most of the layers are supposed to be, and the map looked correct until I Defined the Projection of the data frame to 4269, then the map got out of shape, so, for now, I will leave the data frame with a different projection than all the layers. Data Frame is NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_15N WKID: 26915 Authority: EPSG.  I plan to study this more and at some point, re-do the map correctly.