[tdwg-content] minimum/maximum elevation and depth - usage and priority?

Aaike De Wever aaike.dewever at naturalsciences.be
Mon Jul 9 15:05:13 CEST 2012

Dear Markus,
Dear all,

Thanks a lot for your answers so far.

I understand that both the use for specifying a range and for reflecting
uncertainties on measurements can go in this field, in the later case /
for point data I would also be in favor of having elevationInMeters and

Given the use of min/max to represent uncertainty, I am again puzzled
whether it's actually a good idea of having the same value for both fields
if you have only one value at hand (as this could be interpreted as 0

Regarding the location precision, I am also puzzled why there is both
coordinateUncertaintyInMeters and coordinatePrecision...

With best regards,
Aaike De Wever

On 3 Jul 2012, at 10:41, Markus Döring (GBIF) wrote:


I always considered the min/max terms for elevation and depth to be useful
to express uncertainties.
But if that is the main or only use case wouldn't it be less confusing to
treat uncertainty the same way across all geospatial terms?
I would much prefer to work with elevationInMeters and
elevationUncertaintyInMeters than min max.


PS: There are actually 4 terms for location precision right now:

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list