Re: Geodetic precision

From: Markus Mehring (
Date: Tue Aug 21 2001 - 19:53:30 PDT

  • Next message: Ted Molczan: "My observations of 2001 Aug 22 UTC"

    On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 01:55:23 +0100, you (Chris Olsson
    <>) wrote:
    >I'm astonished by the hostility of your tone [...]
    That has mostly to do with how you insist on being right. Imagine a group
    of people thinking "what's _his_ problem?" and you have an idea of your
    current audience. It's nice that you strive to improve methods and
    techniques, your effort sure is appreciated, but how often do you need to
    be told that it's really not necessary, to say the least? ("Unrealistic",
    "Impractical" and "Overkill" also come to mind...)
    Your concerns regarding "dumbing down" accuracy are noted, but it
    definitely is possible to be too precise and too accurate. Resorting to
    just the level of accuracy that is needed has nothing to do with "dumbing
    down" accuracy, it rather means avoiding an unnecessary overhead that
    otherwise might be an impediment and maybe a distraction and waste of
    ressources. Working as accurate as possible (instead of "as necessary"),
    which is what you're advocating, is pointless under certain conditions.
    >Read what I have actually written on the subject:
    >"It may be impressive to list position to an apparent precision of five
    >decimals of a degree or to a tenth of an arc-second of Lat/Long, but unless the
    >geodetic datum to which those co-ords are referred is associated with such
    >apparent precision, then any accuracy which might be associated with such
    >co-ords is quite wasted."
    >Note that I do not in any way "advocate" such precision.  Indeed, I point out
    >its meaninglessness.
    You're contradicting your own argumentation.
    >I have merely suggested that those who list a precise geographical position
    >also mention the geodetic basis of that position.
    Yes, and the response was that while this is a neat idea in theory, it also
    is not necessary here and hence won't happen. I think that was pretty much
    clear, so what exactly is it that you're not getting there?
    CU!	Markus
    Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe'
    in the SUBJECT to

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 21 2001 - 19:53:50 PDT