Rossko wrote: > > ... (when lat/lon is ambiguous sometimes). > > mmm, debatable. lat/lon always defines an exact point on the surface > of the globe. What's breaking down is the projection of that globe > being mapped onto a surface of larger area. That doesn't help you at > all in itself, but it might trigger some thinking about alternative > approaches to whatever it is you are trying to acheive ... > * The pixels you're trying to locate at the corners represent > imaginary spaces at low zooms, i.e. whether they ought to map to some > arbritary lat/lon at all is debateable. > * The "area" of the low-zoom display is meaningless in square miles, > because part of it represents imaginary and/or duplicated areas; not > sure if that's what your after. > * Some pixels in the body represent the same unique lat/long twice or > more, if the map is wrapped. > * Wrapping is an artefact of the display technology and algorithms, it > doesn't happen with paper maps. > * Many hundred pixels in the body represent a single lat/long in the > case of a pole, now that does happen on paper maps .... it's all > getting a bit philosophical!
All I care about is the pixels here :-) I just want to map container pixels to pixels on the draggable map div. It may be a bad thing to say in a mapping discussion group, but in this case, lat/lon is just an intermediate step whose only purpose is to get in the way. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Maps API" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api?hl=en.
