Anonymous user
Talk:Haversine formula: Difference between revisions
respond to Eliasen
No edit summary |
(respond to Eliasen) |
||
Line 86:
: But at that point you're no longer using the Haversine formula. The task is not to compute the most accurate distance possible between two points on the surface of the Earth. -- [[User:Markjreed|Markjreed]] ([[User talk:Markjreed|talk]]) 22:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
: Additionally, these implementations are very close. The [[Haversine_formula#bc|bc implementation]] with WGS84 ellipsoid¹ is guaranteed to have less than ¼% of error (0.21877% from your given number). This is “good enough” for something this easy to port to various programming languages that might not have enough functionality to support the “better” maths. 【¹) Though I switched to the Astronomical Almanac 2021 radius of i=6378136.600, x stays the same, in my “current” version, which is supposedly more precise. It’s very very close to WGS84, still.】 [[User:Mirabilos|mirabilos]] ([[User talk:Mirabilos|talk]]) 01:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
| |||