Is this is a solution looking for a problem? As you mention something as such in your first comment?
Personally I don’t see a need to this “maximizing efficiency” paradigm for spatial computing, which seems to be mostly driven by industry (the potential for making billions of dollars) not as an inborn desire to better this world. It’s not that I decline it, but the need seems somewhat artificial in a way.
None. Lat longs usability isn't the best (people don't like long numbers). But it's failure mode won't send you to Vietnam when you meant a public park in the UK. even if this system is constrained with simple, short, not confusable words (which would entail shrinking the earth or lowering the resolution) the fact that addresses are randomly assigned extremely reduces it's utility. Can you look at 2 addresses and know immediately where they are in relation to each other? Not the best tool for most map problems.
Yeah, its an overcomplicated, breakable solution. Just decide the minimum safe uncertainty, assign grid cells that provide it, and only report distance quantized to grid cells.
I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't useful for practical purposes. That is what the article is about. I just meant to point out that there are limits and disadvantages to work around. I'm expecting to make this useful they will have to have a team to constantly remap the earth, and send those updates to whoever needs the information.
If you look at it in just the right scale: definitely.
The problem is to find the exact spot to look at. Even today, geo-exploration is mostly a joke: drill where experience tells us to. New hotness: Have AI do inference from formalized experience.
There could be a thousand former fort knoxes or NYCs and we, with our methods, only have a snowball's chance in hell to find any.
I'm not terribly familiar with geo algorithms but I'm curious why it's worthwhile taking the two layer approach.
Can't you precompute the X and Y minima and maxima for each geo fence and throw out 99% of candidates extremely quickly? In other words store the bounding rectangle for each geofence. Even with 100,000s of entries we're talking 4 primitive type comparisons per entry to exclude all non-possible candidates. I would have a hard time believing this is slower than ray casting to city geofences.
If you're doing calculations with geographical co-ordinates that are so unstable that a nanometre position difference in the original makes an arbitrarily large difference in the result, your results aren't sensible anyway.
Depending how it works, probably not. If it's just a rounded value computed from the distance, you'd just have to do a small amount more spoofed queries. Each one would give you a thin donut of possible locations instead of a circle, if that's easy to picture. So ~3 attempts would usually give you a quite small area, and then you could narrow it arbitrarily from there.
Yes, but i’m finding, increasingly, that while we have the means to accurately record data, even accounting for float point errors by reducing area of coverage, things are simply not reported or cared about. It took us a considerable amount of investigation in using an rtk system to actually set things up correctly to get it to actually work within it’s 1cm accuracy. This is stuff like contacting rtk service providers to find out what system they actually correct their coordinates to.
To me, the greatest innovation any provider could do is just specifying the coordinate system used
EDIT: in fact i am finding it shocking, it’s even invoking government regulation, the simple fact is, even using advanced systems from leading suppliers, vital facts are just not recorded because geographic coordinates system are so numerous and complex suppliers just offer defaults and do the real work in the background
Even here, i hope you don’t misunderstand a geographic system as we talk about all coordination systems, as opposed to geographic vs projected coordinate systems
Well the mapping frequency must be increased to account for stuff moving around, but the data like height of buildings is not going to change a lot. But I do get your point of the impracticality.
No because latitude and longitude are infinitely precise only limited by the accuracy of the measuring instrument. With the binary search idea you proposed the dividing lines are more tightly packed longitudinally near the poles.
reply