[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7150?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15216924#comment-15216924
]
Karl Wright commented on LUCENE-7150:
-------------------------------------
It escapes me why degrees and distance in meters is a "natural" measurement.
To me, that's an arbitrary decision that somebody made (here). The distance in
meters as being the way you specify radii of circles is the most problematic.
But I fully understand that Lucene has already decided what units it intends to
use and Geo3d in its current form is incompatible with that. And yet, "meters"
implies a surface distance and geo3d doesn't even have a concept of surface
distance. You could describe radii in degrees and that could match, but that's
not compatible with the 2D implementation.
So should I withdraw this contribution entirely? What is your suggestion?
> geo3d public APIs should match the 2D apis?
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-7150
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7150
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
>
> I'm struggling to benchmark the equivalent to
> {{LatLonPoint.newDistanceQuery}} in the geo3d world.
> Ideally, I think we'd have a {{Geo3DPoint.newDistanceQuery}}? And it would
> take degrees, not radians, and radiusMeters, not an angle?
> And if I index and search using {{PlanetModel.SPHERE}} I think it should
> ideally give the same results as {{LatLonPoint.newDistanceQuery}}, which uses
> haversin.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
