Daevid Vincent wrote:
> My confusion is that I have some formulas to plug in these values, but it
> seems to me that if I use the wrong set of data, my zipcodes will be wrong
> too. I also don't understand why there is even such a difference. I can
> understand a few decimal points being different, but I don't understand how
> they are positive and negative, when it's supposed to be based upon the
> equator and the prime meridian.
Hasn't that already been explained here? Sign is entirely a matter of
convenience and convention.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gmail User [mailto:nowuknow@stripped]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 6:03 AM
>> To: mysql@stripped
>> Subject: RE: Calculate LONG/LAT from ZIP+4 (positve vs.
>> negative longitude)
>> On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 00:43 -0700, Daevid Vincent wrote:
>>> So for a sanity check, I decided to look "online" and punch
>> in some to see
>>> what the "real" lat/long should be. Well, different sites
>> give different
>>> values, and not only are they "slightly" off, but sometimes they're
>>> _positive_ or _negative_!? UGH!
>> Not sure what your confusion is. It is a matter of notation. The
>> negative value represents West where it is negative (as would be the
>> East; note how there is no W mentioned there).
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.6/323 - Release Date: 4/24/2006