Unless I'm misreading, ISO 19125 (2004) is later than ISO 6709 (1983), so using 19125 as an authority is questionable to say the least. Isn't the reality that

Unless I'm misreading, ISO 19125 (2004) is later than ISO 6709 (1983), so using 19125 as an authority is questionable to say the least. Isn't the reality that a bunch of software engineers wrote their software to use lon/lat because x, y is the intuitive ordering in the context of a cylindrical projection way of thinking, and ISO 19125 codified that common software practice without anyone really thinking about it or the conflicts it created? That's hardly definitive, particularly when it contradicted ISO's own earlier standard (which codified the long-standing common communication practice of lat/lon). ISO standards themselves are weak without logical and practical commonplace usage backing them up, because the standards are paywalled. Your experience, and the table in the OP article, shows that lon/lat has more usage in the software world, but that's not sufficient. There's enough confusion, and enough major players defecting from that recent "standard" of 19125, that the issue should be looked at again, re-litigated, and re-standardized. Everyone outside the narrow field of GIS software engineers and data wranglers expects lat/long. The issue has never been litigated at all outside of that insular world. It seems like standardizing on the common practice (outside of the digital technical realm) of lat/lon is the right way to go: The software world has the advantage that if there was consensus to change to lat/lon universally, they could patch it once, convert any data files once, and be done. The software world has much less inertia. In contrast, the non-software world can't be readily converted to lon/lat. It's much more difficult to change people's everyday usage. Look at the mess caused by Americans using MM/DD/YYYY, or English-inspired use of Imperial over metric. It's difficult to convince people to change even when there are significant problems with the historical choice, and objective reasons for why they should change.