Change History

>Understandable, and in my opinion a good compromise. I don't need it, but in case you haven't tested, you should know if it
>works between longitude -180 and +180. My guess is that it will be an issue. On the other hand, the case is probably so
>rare, and hard to solve, that it should be considered a compromise.

I know this limit. The same limit may be in Ground Speak's way to display farthest caches in west and east. (I saw someone to ask about this problem lately) The algorithm which is searching the nearest caches could be easily converted to skip over the 180 degrees but the convex polygon search would be hard or impossible, because in that case the convex polygon goes always around the globe. This was discussed also in the another thread, how to calculate area covered by the farthest finds. Fortiunately the 180 degrees meridian line is located in Pacific Ocean and the cache saturation in that area will be minimal :)

>Understandable, and in my opinion a good compromise. I don't need it, but in case you haven't tested, you should know if it it
>works between longitude -180 and +180. My guess is that it will be an issue. On the other hand, the case is probably so
>rare, and hard to solve, that it should be considered a compromise.

I know this limit. The same limit may be in Ground Speak's way to display farthest caches in west and east. (I saw someone to ask about this problem lately) The algorithm which is searching the nearest caches could be easily converted to skip over the 180 degrees but the convex polygon search would be hard or impossible, because in that case the convex polygon goes always around the globe. This was discussed also in the another thread, how to calculate area covered by the farthest finds. Fortinately the 180 degrees meridian line is located in Pacific Ocean and the cache saturation in that area will be minimal :)

>Understandable, and in my opinion a good compromise. I don't need it, but in case you haven't tested, you should know if it >works between longitude -180 and +180. My guess is that it will be an issue. On the other hand, the case is probably so >rare, and hard to solve, that it should be considered a compromise.

I know this limit. The same limit may be in Ground Speak's way to display farthest caches in west and east. (I saw someone to ask about this problem lately) The algorithm which is searching the nearest caches could be easily converted to skip over the 180 degrees but the convex polygon search would be hard or impossible, because in that case the convex polygon goes always around the globe. This was discussed also in the another thread, how to calculate area covered by the farthest finds. Fortinately the 180 degrees meridian line is located in Pacific Ocean and the cache saturation in that area will be minimal :)