> What is 'contemptible' about lat/lon? it's lousy for assigning attributes to an area; more than adequate for determining what area is under measurement.
> I am still confused as to what is wrong with tracking the location of > your sensor notes using lat/lon. What is the problem with lat/lon? identifying their location with lat/lon is OK - it's storing the resulting data attributable to a defined area where lat/lon becomes troublesome. > What is so attractive to you about losing resolution? I'm not losing resolution. in fact, I'm incorporating the precision of the location measurement into the area defined. also, the mesh I'm suggesting has a direct correlation to lat/lon. it has to - it's how we measure location. my point is that our method for measurement doesn't have to be how we store data. - brian > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rich Gibson > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 12:50 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: New coding schemes -was [Geowanking] Open Street View > > > On 6/14/07, brian grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > by orthogonal, I mean the contemptible Cartesian grid of lat/lon. > > What is 'contemptible' about lat/lon? > > > as our sensor motes are mobile (as are some of our reader > motes), we need to > > track their location. > > I am still confused as to what is wrong with tracking the location of > your sensor notes using lat/lon. What is the problem with lat/lon? > > > the pyxis stuff looks interesting if complex. but these > triangular meshs are > > so simple... > > What is so attractive to you about losing resolution? > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking > _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
