-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Haversine vs Great Circle Distance #3567
Comments
I think also the reason to use the approximated version is only performance, but to check how it is better some profiling is needed. |
The original cycle here was something like we started out with haversine everywhere since it is the most precise formula that is somewhat fast, then switched everything to great circle distance to get a performance speedup. However we realized that great circle distance is not precise enough for some things and switched them back. I would not call it |
Interesting. I'm closing this as interesting but not actionable for us at the moment. We can profile and check in the future if needs be. |
The following is a good distance calculation from "5. Starting point for Newton’s method" in "Algorithms for geodesics" by Charles F. F. Karney (2013):
python source: https://gist.github.com/c8ad6ce4a936e456d281511e2d7a2434 |
In Coordinate calculation it seems like we provide
for measuring distance between two coordinates on a sphere (this is usually called great circle distance).
From what I can see the
greatCircleDistance
titled function really is a equirectangular approximation.The only reason for using it I can come up with is speed. Are those calls really carefully sprinkled in when we need to care about the performance? Any insights here?
cc @TheMarex @oxidase
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: