You are not getting a 3 dimensional location. That’s why GPS coordinates only exist on 2 planes. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Proven wrong, as it’s a “2d” map that only exists on a 3d plane. It’s a slice of space that represents the moving target of “ground level”. The point that this is a problem to take it as just a “2d map” is that you can’t take 3 point readings from on top of a 1000 ft cliff and 3 feet away at the bottom of a cliff and expect 3 point measurements to actually give you accurate measurements since it’s just “2d” right? Elevation matters as it needs to be accounted for during the calculations.
So which coordinate accounts for elevation? Latitude or Longitude?
Where elevation = ground. As stated…
Then you assert.
It’s like you’re making my point for me.
Which was in response to a post stating that the watch would need a 4th satellite or “elevation” in order to get a valid GPS value.
And after I further clarified for you how it works… again… and that I was NOT making your point. I assumed you simply didn’t understand the point I was actually making.
My point, exactly
No… It wasn’t your point at all because you asserted that GPS is 3 point triangulation. When it’s 4 point Trilateration which only has the option of 3 point when the fourth value of elevation is already known, which the vast majority of devices that use GPS don’t know.
What have I straw-manned? Can you point to it? What part of GPS needs 4 nodes/data points is vague?
I don’t. You just aren’t paying attention to what I’m saying. You keep arguing up a strawman.
Proven wrong, as it’s a “2d” map that only exists on a 3d plane. It’s a slice of space that represents the moving target of “ground level”. The point that this is a problem to take it as just a “2d map” is that you can’t take 3 point readings from on top of a 1000 ft cliff and 3 feet away at the bottom of a cliff and expect 3 point measurements to actually give you accurate measurements since it’s just “2d” right? Elevation matters as it needs to be accounted for during the calculations.
Where elevation = ground. As stated…
Then you assert.
Which was in response to a post stating that the watch would need a 4th satellite or “elevation” in order to get a valid GPS value.
And after I further clarified for you how it works… again… and that I was NOT making your point. I assumed you simply didn’t understand the point I was actually making.
No… It wasn’t your point at all because you asserted that GPS is 3 point triangulation. When it’s 4 point Trilateration which only has the option of 3 point when the fourth value of elevation is already known, which the vast majority of devices that use GPS don’t know.
What have I straw-manned? Can you point to it? What part of GPS needs 4 nodes/data points is vague?