NavList:

   

Reply

The broad thrust of George's argument (see "Position lines, crossing")
seems to be that a calculated position is not necessarily the actual
position, and one should be aware of as much. Which is a fair enough
contention, if not exactly fresh news.

Many methods of sight reduction use data expressed to a tenth of a
minute of arc, and render a result to the same level of precision. One
way of acknowledging the uncertainties of a calculated position, I
propose, is to express this rounded off to the nearest minute of arc.

The implication is that the position is not necessarily at the
intersection of these minute lines of long and lat, but rather may be
contained in a rectangle (square at the equator) bounded by the
half-way lines to the next whole minutes. Thus a bigger box than that
implied by a position expressed to the nearest tenth of a minute.

Yes, the actual position may not be contained inside the larger
rectangle. But this proposal avoids the spurious and potentially
misleading precision of the alternative.
And has another advantage of simplicity. There is a good argument that
the appropriate level of precision for nav from small boats is to the
nearest minute, at best, even if calculations are made using the
nearest tenth.

This is not much more than another expression of the difference
between precision and accuracy. The coarser the expression of
position, the more accurate, given the potential for error.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply