Thank you very much for your answer. I totally forgot projections with degrees, sorry ^^ than geodesic math will be the more general approach.
Sincerely, Christoph > Am 09.10.2019 um 16:33 schrieb C Hamilton <adenacult...@gmail.com>: > > Good question. Geodesic math will take more time to compute. If you are using > a local projection and the area of interest is small then it will be faster > using euclidean math, but if your projection is using degrees (WGS84) or you > are covering a large area then geodesic is a better choice. > > Best wishes, > > Calvin > >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:46 AM Christoph Jung <jagodki...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Calvin, >> >> Splitting the algorithms would be an improvement for using them in >> combination with other algorithms and/or plugins. >> >> One question: >> Does the calculations in geodesic math need more time than with eukledean >> math? The last months I had some questions about my plugin >> Offline-MapMatching and all had trajectories with a small bounding box, i.e. >> eukledean math would be enough for good results. The distance between >> following trajectory points are not so big. Why do you want to implement the >> geodesic math (oh, it is a second question ^^)? >> >> Sincerely, >> Christoph >>
_______________________________________________ Qgis-user mailing list Qgis-user@lists.osgeo.org List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user
