You are arguing with the weather. The use of lat/lon is obsolete in the same way XML is obsolete. This was already settled when I was learning about geospatial two decades ago. You are asserting "common practice" that isn't actually common practice. ISO 19125 conformance requirements are ubiquitous; I've never seen a requirement for ISO 6709 conformance in real application. That ship sailed a long time ago.
You are also grossly underestimating the scale of the lon/lat installed based. The lat/lon diehards are the inconsequential and insular part of the market by comparison.
There is no practical way to "patch" the countless exabytes of lon/lat currently sitting in cold storage. These are the largest data sets that exist, and it would be exceedingly unrealistic to expect the world to reformat this data, which they've been happily using up to this point, because a few people don't want to remember that the order is lon/lat. You might as well decree that everyone use XML to store their data while you're at it.
I literally don't care, because it doesn't actually matter. No amount of wishful thinking will cause a return to the imagined golden age of lat/lon.
You are also grossly underestimating the scale of the lon/lat installed based. The lat/lon diehards are the inconsequential and insular part of the market by comparison.
There is no practical way to "patch" the countless exabytes of lon/lat currently sitting in cold storage. These are the largest data sets that exist, and it would be exceedingly unrealistic to expect the world to reformat this data, which they've been happily using up to this point, because a few people don't want to remember that the order is lon/lat. You might as well decree that everyone use XML to store their data while you're at it.
I literally don't care, because it doesn't actually matter. No amount of wishful thinking will cause a return to the imagined golden age of lat/lon.