[R-sig-Geo] areaint in Matlab vs. areaPolygon or areapl in R

[c.gutierrez]

Thanks for pointing this out. Actually, my input to R was correct (lon, lat)
but the Matlab input should have been reversed (lat,lon); same for the
Kearney calculation. The 13-vertices example is from a location in Africa,
by the way -- east of Greenwich (+lon) and south of the equator (-lat).

When I re-ran the matrix in reverse column order, I got:
> areaPolygon(coords.r)
[1] 162299.1
-- which is <1% different from the Matlab result.

Or put another way, the correct result per Kearney for the 13-vertices
polygon is 202408.079 m^2 and <1% different from the R result(s).

Thanks again.



--
View this message in context: http://r-sig-geo.2731867.n2.nabble.com/areaint-in-Matlab-vs-areaPolygon-or-areapl-in-R-tp7581399p7581421.html
Sent from the R-sig-geo mailing list archive at Nabble.com.