Perdón por el doble post...acabo de comprobarlo en un par de distancias que conocia previamente y me ha dado muy cercano, de porteria a porteria en el ramon de carranza 100.889... y asi un par mas
He buscado un poco y he encontrado aqui:
http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/earth/3Th8MuHzKtEEsto:
I'm trying to calibrate my cycle computer by comparing it with google earth measurements of roads near my house in Florence, Italy. But then I ask, how accurate is google earth anyway?
So I go to the athletics track at Crystal Palace, London (lat 51.418694 lon -0.067387) and the distance from the 100m start line to the finish line appears to be around 0.25% below 100m.
Then I go to the athletics track in Barcelona's Olympic Stadium (lat 41.364774 lon 2.156008) and I can't see the track. But measuring the 18 yard line on the football pitch I find a 3.1% overestimation. Not sure that football pitches are marked out so precisely though!
Beijing's bird's nest stadium draw's a blank - the modern new fangled things don't let you see in. So much for progress.
So I go to Sweden's olympic stadium (lat 59.345655 lon 18.078848) and I get just about dead on 100m.
So I go to city of manchester stadium (lat 53.484000 lon -2.203923) and I get about 0.17% under 100m.
Finally to Don Valley in Sheffield (lat 53.395896 lon -1.425012) and again get about 0.17% under.
Seems like the underestimate increases proportionally with latitude, plotting these figures in excel! Thus in Florence I can add 0.47% to my cycle computer numbers and go faster and further!
But then I find an athletics track in Florence (43.779199, 11.280393), It gives me just 0.04% under over 100m. So I'm busted!
Back to the day job...
Un tio que también ha estado comparando varias pistas de atletismo y le sale un error de 0,17%.
Por eso pienso que son los airsofters flipados los que pinchan en el mapa donde le da gana y asi salen como salen los metros (pero nunca les salen de menos. Que cucos...)..
