D
David Martin
Guest
On 19/12/04 7:08 pm, in article [email protected], "half_pint"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> No thats a lie you said 100 meter, or at least 100 was thedistance in
> question.
>
> Own up.
Quote the post to which I was replying and give the context for my answer. I
think this proves the point that top posting can leads to misunderstandings.
OP mentioned that he had calibrated his speedo using a particular method and
was wanting to measure the DISTANCE between home and work he travels on his
commute (estimated at 17km). Someone suggested using the markers by the side
of the road to calibrate. There was anotehr post (IIRC) suggesting using GPS
to measure a stretch of road accurately for calibration. I then made my
contribution which, because I followed a top posting stylee, didn't contain
th e above context, so you faield to follow the discussion.
Now kindly apologise for calling me a liar.
...d
>
> "David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> half_pint wrote:
>>> You said 100 meters.
>>
>> No *I* didn't. If you were reading a properly interleaved thread, or
>> could read a thread in your newsreader properly, you will have seen that
>> the original distance to be measured was estimated at 17km. Various
>> calibration methods were suggested for the bike computer, including
>> using the 100m posts on a major road. The measurement is not 100m, but
>> many km.
>>
>> Oh, and when selective availability was turned off, my P-i-L went from
>> being able to determine which end of the boat they were on, to which
>> side they were on.
>>
>> ..d
>>
>>>
>>> I beleive GPS is only accurate to within meters, yes it would
> differenceiate
>>> the ends of a narrow boat but it is not precise.
>>>
>>> "David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> half_pint wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well I can remember that from yesterday.
>>>>> I don't think GPS is actually that accurate, infact rather to
>>>>> inaccurate for measureing 100m, I believe the margin of
>>>>> error is several meters.
>>>>
>>>> If you hadn't snipped what I was replying to, then you would have seen
>>>> that the distance is of the order of ten to twenty kilometers. As my
>>>> in-laws found the GPS sensitive enough to tell them which end of their
>>>> narrow boat they were on (always useful to know which end should be
>>>> going forwards), I think it should give a reasonable approximation on
>>>> 1000 times that distance.
>>>>
>>>> ..d
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:BDE85446.5EBA%[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is quite an assumption to presume that the 100m markers are
> actually
>>>
>>> at
>>>
>>>>>> 100m. Better to use a GPS to monitor the exact distance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (And if you want to see what I was replying to you only have to
> remember
>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> thread, or click on the previous button)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ..d
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
<[email protected]> wrote:
> No thats a lie you said 100 meter, or at least 100 was thedistance in
> question.
>
> Own up.
Quote the post to which I was replying and give the context for my answer. I
think this proves the point that top posting can leads to misunderstandings.
OP mentioned that he had calibrated his speedo using a particular method and
was wanting to measure the DISTANCE between home and work he travels on his
commute (estimated at 17km). Someone suggested using the markers by the side
of the road to calibrate. There was anotehr post (IIRC) suggesting using GPS
to measure a stretch of road accurately for calibration. I then made my
contribution which, because I followed a top posting stylee, didn't contain
th e above context, so you faield to follow the discussion.
Now kindly apologise for calling me a liar.
...d
>
> "David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> half_pint wrote:
>>> You said 100 meters.
>>
>> No *I* didn't. If you were reading a properly interleaved thread, or
>> could read a thread in your newsreader properly, you will have seen that
>> the original distance to be measured was estimated at 17km. Various
>> calibration methods were suggested for the bike computer, including
>> using the 100m posts on a major road. The measurement is not 100m, but
>> many km.
>>
>> Oh, and when selective availability was turned off, my P-i-L went from
>> being able to determine which end of the boat they were on, to which
>> side they were on.
>>
>> ..d
>>
>>>
>>> I beleive GPS is only accurate to within meters, yes it would
> differenceiate
>>> the ends of a narrow boat but it is not precise.
>>>
>>> "David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> half_pint wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well I can remember that from yesterday.
>>>>> I don't think GPS is actually that accurate, infact rather to
>>>>> inaccurate for measureing 100m, I believe the margin of
>>>>> error is several meters.
>>>>
>>>> If you hadn't snipped what I was replying to, then you would have seen
>>>> that the distance is of the order of ten to twenty kilometers. As my
>>>> in-laws found the GPS sensitive enough to tell them which end of their
>>>> narrow boat they were on (always useful to know which end should be
>>>> going forwards), I think it should give a reasonable approximation on
>>>> 1000 times that distance.
>>>>
>>>> ..d
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:BDE85446.5EBA%[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is quite an assumption to presume that the 100m markers are
> actually
>>>
>>> at
>>>
>>>>>> 100m. Better to use a GPS to monitor the exact distance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (And if you want to see what I was replying to you only have to
> remember
>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> thread, or click on the previous button)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ..d
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>