Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org writes:
Tobias Wendorff wrote:
Matthew W. S. Bell schrieb:
I think the key point here that the projection used for geometry editing
should be a conformal[1] one (i.e., angle preserving) like those in [2].
Possibly, the projection should have an even greater
Spherical geometry allows you to calculate _directly_ on the sphere
without using a projection ... you simple use LatLon in radian
degrees.
True, but it's not really trivial.
A rectangle with 89.55°, 90.1°, 89.89°, 90,01° is no rectangle.
What's the definition of rectangle in
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Spherical geometry allows you to calculate _directly_ on the sphere
without using a projection ... you simple use LatLon in radian
degrees.
True, but it's not really trivial.
A rectangle with 89.55°, 90.1°, 89.89°,
Am Do, 17.12.2009, 23:40 schrieb Anthony:
What's the definition of rectangle in non-euclidean geometry anyway?
I can't answer this right now ;-)
But since we've got projections which *are* actually good to show
rectangles with correct shapes and angles, it could be possible to find a
suiteable
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.netwrote:
My point was that Wyoming *is* a rectangle in a Mercator projection.
Well, it would have been if they had surveyed it correctly:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=44.996lon=-110.625zoom=11layers=B000FTF
Anthony o...@inbox.org writes:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.netwrote:
My point was that Wyoming *is* a rectangle in a Mercator projection.
Well, it would have been if they had surveyed it correctly:
