Gilletarom
commented
9 months ago And in the same way, in the "ETA" column of a segment, is it reasonable to write durations to the nearest second? For example, referring to the screenshot above, the estimated navigation time on the first segment is 9mn 59s. It would be more honest, and more sensible, to write 10 minutes.
And likewise, the calculated time of passage at the end of this same segment is 12mn 09 s. We could round up to 12:10 p.m. Because making a mistake of at most 10 seconds, on a 12-minutes journey, is that scandalous?
Hello,
See the screenshot below where we see the properties window of a route built by WR:
In the column of speeds reached on each segment, we observe that the speeds are written with 5 decimal places. For example, on segment number 1 of the route, the speed, in knots, is 6.92144. (i.e. 12,818.50688 meters/hour, or a precision of the order of a hundredth of a millimeter per hour) But the speed is in knots. SO, the precision reaches a hundredth of a millimeter per hour.... Taking into account the inaccuracies in the data on winds and currents, and the imprecision of the formula for calculating speeds in WR, this is totally aberrant.
I think that showing a speed of 6.92 knots would even still be too precise because that would be 12,815.84 meters/hour.
Looking more closely, displaying the value 7 knots would provide an accuracy of around one meter per hour (7 knots = 12964 meters per hour). The error introduced would be around 1.1%.
I propose : 1° To please users who will be happy to read speeds to the nearest tenth of a knot, let's keep rounding with one decimal place. 2) Let's keep all the decimal places internally so that in the event of a change in the unit used, this does not add any additional error.