[uf-discuss] geo - accuracy of coordinates
kmarks at technorati.com
Mon Oct 2 16:46:24 PDT 2006
On Oct 2, 2006, at 4:24 PM, Kevin Marks wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Chris Casciano wrote:
>> You could outline any territory as a series of geos if the need ever
>> arose. But I'm still not clear how we've gotten here. If I want to
>> say something is in Ireland, or Mexico City or somewhere in the Alps
>> I'd tag it as such. I thought the original issue of accuracy was one
>> of precision (either via tool measurement or in human recollection).
>> Not one of being able to define a "geo" that accurately represents
>> the floorplan of Yankee Stadium or the whole of Antarctica but of
>> accurately reflecting if a designation was accurate enough to make a
>> determination if a specific seat in yankee stadium, "somewhere in the
>> bleechers", or just "near the stadium as i was walking around before
>> the game" or "i need to mark the bronx somehow so left me zoom out
>> and drop a marker from the 50k foot view"
> Notice that the yankeestadium tag shows various usages here - the
> ambiguity between where the photo was taken from and what it was taken
> You could probably derive a useful 'centrepoint + radius' for Yankee
> stadium from the mean and std-dev of those geolocated, tagged points.
> Notice that the URL I used above has 6 digits of latitude and
> longitude (a supposed precision of ~ 10cm), but a zoom-level parameter
> to express the actual display I wanted to convey.
> However, what you see is dependent on the size of your browser window,
> as the zoom-level is defined based on pixel-size, not window width.
Hm, also, flickr maps didn't update it right. What I meant was
which rather illustrates the underlying need.
More information about the microformats-discuss