Slashdot Mirror
Visiting Every Latitude and Longitude Intersection
Kevin A. Pieckiel writes "The Degree Confluence Project's goal is to visit every latitude and logitude degree integer intersection in the world and journal it on this web site. An excerpt: 'The project is an organized sampling of the world. There is a confluence within 49 miles (79 km) of you if you're on the surface of Earth. We've discounted confluences in the oceans and some near the poles, but there are still 12,889 to be found.' A neat project, indeed." As Timothy noted, I've posted before, and in Slashback form; a while back.
And how does this qualify as newsworthy on Slashdot?
News for NERDS!!!
I'd have more respect if they visited every White Castle or all of the Ikea stores.
Here's something close: Project Denny's
Good luck, you'll need it!
Never mind- it's been visited, along with every other non-ocean Oregon confluence.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
"Evenly sampled" is used loosely here. For example, the lucky stiff who gets assigned to one of the poles can take fill in 1/180 (360/64800) of all the data points without taking a step!
A tessellated icosahedron would be better from the standpoint of even sampling, but the coordinate transformations from the GPS-ready latitude and longitude numbers would be prohibitive for most recreational gee-whiz participants.
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
.... with so many uber parochials as yourself.
You can take your camera to Iran and Tibet, no problems.
Even to North Korea, if you apply for the right permisions and follow the instructions of your guard.
Turkmenistan is tough but not impossible.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I looked at the site, and didn't see any indication of which version of lattitude/longitude they want people to use. There are several different models which can give slightly different coordinates for the same physical point (e.g. NAD 27, NAD 83, WGS 84).
Admittedly, the confluences under each grid are almost always within 100 meters of each other, which is what the project organizers consider acceptable accuracy, but it is still suprising that they don't make it explicit.
I'll agree with North Korea. But Exactly what is th eproblem with Tibet? A lot of tourists are travelling there, there is no problems going there. How do you think all those souvernir salesmen in Lhasa make their living?
And Iran is, even though your president called it part of some fictious axes of evil, a very open and friendly place. In fact, it's probably the most "advanced" society in the middle east.
Stop watching Fox News and switch to Discovery or something instead. Or even better, try to travel outside your continent.
Even in places where you CAN go (politcally, legally) you still can't (logistically) like the whole north half of friggin Canada or Siberia.
You do know that Canada isn't bone-chilling cold year round, right? People live in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. People hunt there, people mine there. There are few places that would be nearly impossible to get to.
I would hike there, but the path was already beaten, apparently into submission.
You should have tried a living girl. I hear they're better.
http://www.confluence.org/confluence.php?lat=-41&l on=147
"We got within 1.5 km of this confluence before being asked to leave by the Army. As it turns out, the confluence is in the middle of a live firing range and it is not safe or legal to visit it without assistance from the Army."
- Chuq
Nope, still one degree.
Which also defines 60 nautical miles. A nautical mile (a minute of latitude) is usually accepted to be constant at 1852 metres (or meters). But due to the flattening at the poles, I am pretty sure this is not true. So the answer is yes, they get closer from the equator to the pole.
Doing the maths on a modern datum, I found 1854 m at the equator and 1850m at the poles.
Anyone concur?
How far apart are 1deg longitudianal lines at the equator? How far apart, say, 10 or 20 degrees south of the north pole?
Assuming the Earth is a perfect sphere (which it isn't), longitudinal lines are 60*cos(latitude) nautical miles apart along latitudinal lines, or 60 * arccos(sin^2(latitude) + cos(1 degree)*cos^2(latitude)) (in degrees) nautical miles apart along a great circle. 60 nautical miles is approximately 69 miles or 111 km.
Also, I forget--do lines of latitude get closer together as you go closer to the poles, or are they all X miles apart?
They are all 60 nautical miles apart, or about 69 miles/111 km.
May be he wasn't a native English speaker. Why is it necessary to mock him for poor grammar (or are you all just trying to prove his point?)? May be they speak like that in Australia, because you know, English is different. In Britain they would say "who I dated", may be in Australia "which" is a correct form.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
You don't need fancy math to answer the first question. There are 360 1-degree lines, therefore the distance between the lines at the equator is 1/360th of the circumference of the earth, i.e., 24900/360 = 69.16 miles.
"a coming or flowing together, meeting, or gathering at one point" -- www.m-w.com (Merriam-Webster)
Nowhere does this definition appear to preclude the things which 'flow together', 'meet' or 'gather' from continuing separately. Nor is the square/normal nature of the meeting excluded by this definition.
Out of curiosity, what dictionary did you consult?
Eric Lincoln
Degree Confluence Project