The "main cities" is one reason I hadn't firmly accounted for
locations before, very few people were said to be using only a city
coordinate so most are likely in surrounding areas.  London seemed to
be where it should have been for example but I was trying to line up a
paper map with a gridless image so the only really alignable cities
would be on a coastline with obvious landmarks.  Also I had only done
that based on the full view of the 3 globes which didn't need much
accuracy anyhow.  From what I've been able to tell everyone should be
within a 1/4 degree, or about 12.5 miles, of there actual location
(possibly as much as 1/2 degree or 25 miles).  But then I've only just
now been able to check according to this more accurate rendering so it
may be better or worse.  I know my marker seems to be less than 10
miles off if at all.  I haven't zoomed in yet on various locales to
further see the precision/inaccuracy.

Bob

Antti Arola <aea### [at] ioboxfi> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] kuhacclutfi...
> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 11:06:46 -0500, Bob Hughes <inv### [at] aolcom>
wrote:
> >discovered a flaw in the markers which caused them to be elevated
> >above the globe slightly and at oblique viewing angles this created
a
> >position offset (thanks Antti!).  To summarize, they were once more
>
> I'm glad if my complaints have been helpful, I'm now happy with my
> location on the map and the rest of us finns probably too - at least
they
> seem to be rather accurately in/near larger cities.
>
> --
> Antti Arola (@lut.fi)
> aea### [at] ioboxfi
>

Post a reply to this message