[ImAnEngineerToo]

We can. This will just be more evidence that the earth is NOT a spheroid or an oblate spheroid. It must be some other shape.

I don’t understand why we’re still discussing the validity of bing when we have an open source map to reference. Use it to validate bing. It doesn’t matter who or how Microsoft wrote their map codes, as long as they are correct. You can verify accuracy using an open source code map so you can see the formula for yourself. I’m not going to do this for you because a)FET is your crusade and b)I am a mechanical engineer, NOT a web developer. I think until you bring results from this, anything you say more about Bing/Microsoft is anecdotal. So far your words have been a lot of anecdotal and not a lot of the so called “evidence” that flat earthers claim to value higher than RE plebs.

[ChrisTP]

This statement is ridiculous. Not only is it misspelled but it provides no productive input whatsoever and it's borderline insulting.

Oh apologies for accidentally spelling a word wrong. This has never happend in the history of the internet for sure. I will now perform Seppuku for bringing dishonor to the interwebs. Regardless your statement is still ridiculous and attempts at shaming my spelling mistakes is not a good argument in this debate.

You sure as hell would have put an Easter egg if the CEO told you to.

Yes of course, and it sure as hell would get found by the general public, just like how misinformation would in documentation for a product that everyone uses. My point still stands, it's a massively used product, people read the documentation all the time, people tend to want to point out errors to make themselves feel better just like how you tried to do with my spelling, only to accidentally prove my point. And lets be clear, small errors in spelling, grammar or punctuation is absolutely not even on the same level as distorting a disk into a spheroid by accident without anyone noticing... If I go buy a hockey puck, I don't expect it to accidentally be shaped like a football and no one along the manufacturing process all the way to the shop employees notice the puck being absolutely not a puck.

If you think the documentation is wrong, go find the evidence and present it to microsoft, they'll be glad to fix the error if there is one. Until you do though, saying "anything can be edited" is about as silly a reason as saying "people can write lies on paper, therefore all paper documentation is false until proven otherwise"

[iamcpc]

it sure as hell would get found by the general public, just like how misinformation would in documentation for a product that everyone uses.

Does KFC really have 11 herbs and spices? Maybe the truth is they really have 12 herbs and spices. You will never know even though it's a product that everyone uses. The number of people who use a product is moot. I put incorrect and invalid information on a website at the request of my CEO that was used by thousands and thousands of people.

If you think the documentation is wrong, go find the evidence and present it to microsoft, they'll be glad to fix the error if there is one. Until you do though, saying "anything can be edited" is about as silly a reason as saying "people can write lies on paper, therefore all paper documentation is false until proven otherwise"

It's not that I think the documentation is wrong. I don't know that the documentation is right. Microsoft would never release their source code and let the truth out.

[robinofloxley]

The distances calculated by the Haversine formula match a sphere and no other shape.

That is where part of the problem is. According to the RE model the earth is NOT a sphere. It is a spheroid or an oblate spheroid.
 If those overseas distances truly are accurate that it is VERY strong evidence which suggest:

1. The earth is NOT the shape that is claimed.
2. Someone made a mistake somewhere

You are asserting that the distances are accurate. I'm saying they are accurate enough. There's a difference. The earth is not a perfect sphere. It's not a perfect spheroid. It's not a perfect anything. Approximating the earth to a spheroid gives great accuracy. Approximating the earth to a sphere is less accurate, but perfectly good enough for most purposes in most parts of the world. The great advantage of modelling it as a sphere is that the calculations involved for calculating distances or generating projections are greatly simplified, which makes it ideal for an interactive presentation such as Google Maps or Bing Maps where the user expects a snappy response.

Saying Bing maps use a sphere for convenience doesn't mean we've got the shape of the earth wrong or someone made a mistake.

Nobody has made a mistake, it's all in the documentation.

How do you know? If you're just making things up I could very easily claim that someone did make a mistake. Here you're making a claim without one shred of evidence.

The Bing documentation https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/bingmaps/articles/bing-maps-tile-system is the evidence:

To simplify the calculations, we use the spherical form of this projection, not the ellipsoidal form.

The spherical projection causes approximately 0.33% scale distortion in the Y direction, which is not visually noticeable.

Of course you can cast doubt on the documentation if you want, but whether you like it or not, it is clearly evidence that whilst they acknowledge using a spherical model leads to more distortion than would be the case with an ellipsoidal model, it doesn't matter, it's accurate enough.

Well I've already suggested that we can write a bit of code to check distances from Bing against an independant implementation of Haversine and do this for a sample size of 1 million random pairs of locations. Is that not a big enough sample size for you?

We can. This will just be more evidence that the earth is NOT a spheroid or an oblate spheroid. It must be some other shape.

No, there are two separate but related issues here, 1) what is the best approximation for the true shape of the earth? 2) what model does Bing maps employ?

The focus here in this thread has been Bing maps, why? Because you insist that Bing maps are accurate. Well other than a warm fuzzy feeling that this is the case, where is your evidence for this?

The problem is that despite a mountain of evidence, you just don't want to concede that under the hood, your beloved Bing maps uses a sphere as a model. The documentation says it does and every distance measurement anyone has performed conforms exactly with what you would expect from a simple spherical model with a 6378137m radius.

[Groit]

Someone would need a pretty big sample size to start to believe that it's 100%. Even if it was 100% it's just more evidence that the earth is not the shape that we were told it was.

We can. This will just be more evidence that the earth is NOT a spheroid or an oblate spheroid. It must be some other shape.

You can't measure anything with 100% accuracy in the real world, nothing.

But nobody returns a glass sphere to the hobby store because they measured it with high precision laser scanner and found it's only 99.9999% spherical. No sane person would say they were lied to because it's not a PERFECT sphere, demand a refund and then sue for false advertising.

Nothing in reality is a perfect sphere, it's impossible. You can't even make one, no matter how hard you try. Even with super advanced technology that can build an object atom by atom, it will never be a perfect sphere, ever. I hate to repeat myself, but you can't ever make a perfect sphere, or a perfect cube, or a perfectly straight line.

Well said, and very true. I would just like to add that although the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, it's actually more spherical than a billiard ball.

http://www.curiouser.co.uk/facts/smooth_earth.htm

I think the most spherical object we know of in the universe is a 'neutron star', but they're not perfect.
Mathematics doesn't allow for perfect spheres due to pi being an irrational decimal number which goes to infinity, the more decimal places you use in calculations then the closer you get to, but will never reach perfection. 

[stack]

it sure as hell would get found by the general public, just like how misinformation would in documentation for a product that everyone uses.

Does KFC really have 11 herbs and spices? Maybe the truth is they really have 12 herbs and spices. You will never know even though it's a product that everyone uses. The number of people who use a product is moot. I put incorrect and invalid information on a website at the request of my CEO that was used by thousands and thousands of people.

The Colonel's secret recipe has nothing to do with an authoritative source documenting how developers need to interface with their API's and what those API calls do. Your analogy is moot and just downright silly at this point.

If you think the documentation is wrong, go find the evidence and present it to microsoft, they'll be glad to fix the error if there is one. Until you do though, saying "anything can be edited" is about as silly a reason as saying "people can write lies on paper, therefore all paper documentation is false until proven otherwise"

It's not that I think the documentation is wrong. I don't know that the documentation is right. Microsoft would never release their source code and let the truth out.

You have no evidence that the documentation is wrong and you've been shown through demonstration that it is right. Demonstrate how the product is not performing the calculation functions as described. As it stands your argument has zero footing.

[iamcpc]

Does KFC really have 11 herbs and spices? Maybe the truth is they really have 12 herbs and spices. You will never know even though it's a product that everyone uses. The number of people who use a product is moot. I put incorrect and invalid information on a website at the request of my CEO that was used by thousands and thousands of people.

The Colonel's secret recipe has nothing to do with an authoritative source documenting how developers need to interface with their API's and what those API calls do. Your analogy is moot and just downright silly at this point.

We can just agree to disagree.
I think that a claim made, in the name of a company, on an HTML document is comparable to a claim made, in the name of a company, on an HTML document


I think that not  blindly accepting what others say on the internet is healthy. Otherwise I would think that the news people are lizard aliens.

You have no evidence that the documentation is wrong

I never said I had evidence that the documentation is wrong. I just said that I don't have any evidence which supports that it is correct.

and you've been shown through demonstration that it is right.

No one has sat down with me and demonstrated the source code of the API and how it relates to advances planar geometry.

Demonstrate how the product is not performing the calculation functions as described.

Without access to the information i've provided multiple times i'm unable to do what you have asked

As it stands your argument has zero footing.

My argument is simply don't blindly trust everything that someone says on the internet. I don't see how that previous sentence has zero footing.

[stack]

Does KFC really have 11 herbs and spices? Maybe the truth is they really have 12 herbs and spices. You will never know even though it's a product that everyone uses. The number of people who use a product is moot. I put incorrect and invalid information on a website at the request of my CEO that was used by thousands and thousands of people.

The Colonel's secret recipe has nothing to do with an authoritative source documenting how developers need to interface with their API's and what those API calls do. Your analogy is moot and just downright silly at this point.

We can just agree to disagree.
I think that a claim made, in the name of a company, on an HTML document is comparable to a claim made, in the name of a company, on an HTML document


I think that not  blindly accepting what others say on the internet is healthy. Otherwise I would think that the news people are lizard aliens.

You have no evidence that the documentation is wrong

I never said I had evidence that the documentation is wrong. I just said that I don't have any evidence which supports that it is correct.

and you've been shown through demonstration that it is right.

No one has sat down with me and demonstrated the source code of the API and how it relates to advances planar geometry.

Demonstrate how the product is not performing the calculation functions as described.

Without access to the information i've provided multiple times i'm unable to do what you have asked

As it stands your argument has zero footing.

My argument is simply don't blindly trust everything that someone says on the internet. I don't see how that previous sentence has zero footing.

It's been demonstrated to you with examples that the Microsoft documentation about the Microsoft product is correct. It's referred to as evidence and corroboration.

You, on the other hand, have provided no evidence to the contrary - Only a simple "Don't believe everything you read..." mantra. Which, like I stated before, applies to every bit of evidence through citation that has ever been presented, pretty much anywhere. You must be in turbo trolling mode because it's the lamest, no effort argument I've encountered in I can't remember when.

I'm afraid that you're just going to have to live with the fact that your preferred Map site is based upon a spherical earth.

[iamcpc]

It's been demonstrated to you with examples that the Microsoft documentation about the Microsoft product is correct. It's referred to as evidence and corroboration.

I have yet to see the Bing source code and have someone walk me through it.

You, on the other hand, have provided no evidence to the contrary

Bingo! If I had evidence that it was wrong then I would think it was wrong.

- Only a simple "Don't believe everything you read..." mantra. Which, like I stated before, applies to every bit of evidence through citation that has ever been presented, pretty much anywhere.
You must be in turbo trolling mode because it's the lamest, no effort argument I've encountered in I can't remember when.

You think that the claims made on the Bing HTML document are correct.
I don't know if the claims made on the Bing HTML document are correct.

 I stated my position and people have been asking me questions about my position. I answer them then I get called a troll.

People:Why don't you think that the information on the Bing HTML document is correct?
Me: I've worked in web design. I know how easy it is to put incorrect or inaccurate information on an HTML document.

People: But it's from Bing. It must be correct!.
Me: Just because it's from Bing does not mean that it's correct. I've published things to HTML documents online, at the direction of my CEO, which I knew were incorrect or inaccurate. I don't know if that's happening here.

People:That's ridiculous. People can get fired/sued if they try to put false info out there.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Me: I've published things to HTML documents online, at the direction of my CEO, which I knew were incorrect or inaccurate without getting fired or sued so I know for a fact that is not right.

People: What evidence would help you decide that the Bing claims are correct instead of being unsure?
Me: Access to the source codes with someone to walk me through it to understand the code and a person with a masters in math to help me understand the math.

People: It's on the Bing website you should believe it.
Me:  I've published things to HTML documents online, at the direction of my CEO, which I knew were incorrect or inaccurate. I don't know if that's happening here. Because of my own personal experiences doing web development I prefer to take things I read online with a grain of salt.

People: You must be in turbo trolling mode because it's the lamest, no effort argument
Me:I didn't know it was arguing. I thought I was answering questions about my position. If you think my conversation on this topic is lame and effortless then, by all means, stop participating in this lame and effortless debate.

[GreatATuin]

So I punched in SFO (San Francisco International Airport) to HKG (Hong Kong International Airport) into a Great Circle Mapper tool on the web. Here is the result:


http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SFO-HKG

The Haversine great circle Globe distance is 6,927 mi

I then went to Bing Maps and measured the same, SFO to HKG, and got this:



And guess what, same exact distance, 6,927 mi

What more proof do you need than this and Microsoft's own documentation that Bing Maps is using Globe calculations?

Just for the sake of precision - gcmap uses Vincenty, not Haversine (http://www.gcmap.com/faq/gccalc#vincenty ). Which makes me think Bing actually enables the "highAccuracy" flag and switches to Vincenty under certain circumstances (for long distance calculations?). https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html does use Haversine and finds a slightly smaller value (the difference is less than 0.2%).

This doesn't change the point, both are based on a more-or-less spherical models and give results that don't differ that much, but given the level of nitpicking seen on this thread...

[GreatATuin]

Well I've already suggested that we can write a bit of code to check distances from Bing against an independant implementation of Haversine and do this for a sample size of 1 million random pairs of locations. Is that not a big enough sample size for you?

We can. This will just be more evidence that the earth is NOT a spheroid or an oblate spheroid. It must be some other shape.

It has been explained to you many times. The sphere is an approximation. The oblate spheroid is a better approximation. Any model is an approximation. Only the real thing is not an approximation, but it's not very convenient to measure large distances on the real Earth, it's not very practical to hold a rope between San Francisco and Hong-Kong and measure it, so we just use models. The sphere approximation is good enough to calculate distances within an acceptable margin of error.

You don't trust the API documentation? Fine. You can calculate yourself the distance between any two coordinates using the Haversine or Vincenty formula, and check if Bing gives the same result.

Haversine : https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html

Vincenty's : https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong-vincenty.html

The source code is included, and even implementations in other languages. If you find any pair of coordinates for which Bing indicates a distance that differ significantly, you'll prove Bing doesn't use these formulas.

[robinofloxley]

Well I've already suggested that we can write a bit of code to check distances from Bing against an independant implementation of Haversine and do this for a sample size of 1 million random pairs of locations. Is that not a big enough sample size for you?

We can. This will just be more evidence that the earth is NOT a spheroid or an oblate spheroid. It must be some other shape.

It has been explained to you many times. The sphere is an approximation. The oblate spheroid is a better approximation. Any model is an approximation. Only the real thing is not an approximation, but it's not very convenient to measure large distances on the real Earth, it's not very practical to hold a rope between San Francisco and Hong-Kong and measure it, so we just use models. The sphere approximation is good enough to calculate distances within an acceptable margin of error.

You don't trust the API documentation? Fine. You can calculate yourself the distance between any two coordinates using the Haversine or Vincenty formula, and check if Bing gives the same result.

Haversine : https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html

Vincenty's : https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong-vincenty.html

The source code is included, and even implementations in other languages. If you find any pair of coordinates for which Bing indicates a distance that differ significantly, you'll prove Bing doesn't use these formulas.

Well let's see if we can take this idea from GreatATuin and run with it...

It's been demonstrated to you with examples that the Microsoft documentation about the Microsoft product is correct. It's referred to as evidence and corroboration.

I have yet to see the Bing source code and have someone walk me through it.

You, on the other hand, have provided no evidence to the contrary

Bingo! If I had evidence that it was wrong then I would think it was wrong.

You can't prove software to be correct for anything other than trivial examples. What matters is not what the software looks like, but what it does and whether it meets its specification. To verify this in the real world you write automated tests. That is the strategy used whether you are working with open or closed source software. If you want to use it and you need to know it's correct, you test it.

You ask for evidence, but when it comes to Bing, you repeatedly claim it is accurate because it is based on real world distances, yet you provide no evidence for this whatsoever. Your standard for evidence is entirely biased towards your own beliefs.

Three times now I've proposed the following methodology to verify the accuracy of the Bing API with its documentation. Three times you've failed to respond, so lets try again...

Choose a large number of random pairs of locations (latitude and longitude), e.g. 1 million. Use the Bing API to calculate the distances between each pair. Repeat the calculations using some implementation of the Haversine formula (for which we do have the source code) and my contention is that the two sets of results will agree to a very high accuracy (e.g. < 0.01% difference).

So if your Bing distances are always 100% in agreement with a Haversine distance for any two locations then the underlying shape used by Bing cannot be anything other than a sphere.

Someone would need a pretty big sample size to start to believe that it's 100%.

There you go, you want a pretty big sample size. I'm offering a million and I ask you again, one more time, is one million enough for you?

I have read the Bing documentation and I believe it and I'm therefore so supremely confident in what Microsoft are telling me that I'm now offering to write the code for you to perform this test. One million random pairs of locations. I'll use the code for Haversine that GreatATuin linked to. I'll post all the code, instructions on how to use it and the results. Feel free to examine the code as much as you like, ask reasonable questions and I'll try and answer them. But at the end of the day I'm only doing this if you agree that it's a valid test and would settle the issue once and for all. What do you say?

[iamcpc]

There you go, you want a pretty big sample size. I'm offering a million and I ask you again, one more time, is one million enough for you?

I have read the Bing documentation and I believe it and I'm therefore so supremely confident in what Microsoft are telling me that I'm now offering to write the code for you to perform this test. One million random pairs of locations. I'll use the code for Haversine that GreatATuin linked to. I'll post all the code, instructions on how to use it and the results. Feel free to examine the code as much as you like, ask reasonable questions and I'll try and answer them. But at the end of the day I'm only doing this if you agree that it's a valid test and would settle the issue once and for all. What do you say?

Settle what issue exactly? If the Bing API has a high chance of using the Haversine formula (or something very similar to it) for calculating distances? Sure.

Although it's very clear that Bing maps has multiple different distance algorithms it uses.The distances that i have been able to independently corroborate don't appear to be using the same equations as the two point things.

[robinofloxley]

There you go, you want a pretty big sample size. I'm offering a million and I ask you again, one more time, is one million enough for you?

I have read the Bing documentation and I believe it and I'm therefore so supremely confident in what Microsoft are telling me that I'm now offering to write the code for you to perform this test. One million random pairs of locations. I'll use the code for Haversine that GreatATuin linked to. I'll post all the code, instructions on how to use it and the results. Feel free to examine the code as much as you like, ask reasonable questions and I'll try and answer them. But at the end of the day I'm only doing this if you agree that it's a valid test and would settle the issue once and for all. What do you say?

Settle what issue exactly? If the Bing API has a high chance of using the Haversine formula (or something very similar to it) for calculating distances? Sure.

Although it's very clear that Bing maps has multiple different distance algorithms it uses.The distances that i have been able to independently corroborate don't appear to be using the same equations as the two point things.

OK, so you're now willing to at least entertain the idea that the Bing API internally uses the Haversine formula (or something similar), so no need to attempt demonstrate this to you any more.

Is it very clear that Bing maps uses multiple different distance algorithms? How do you reach that conclusion? What are these alternative algorithms? Why would you need them? You've said many times that you consider Bing maps to be accurate, so what's your position now, is it always accurate, usually accurate, sometimes accurate?

[iamcpc]

OK, so you're now willing to at least entertain the idea that the Bing API internally uses the Haversine formula (or something similar)

I've always been willing to entertain the truth. Unfortunately, in this situation, I don't know the truth.

so no need to attempt demonstrate this to you any more.

I thought your goal was trying to change my opinion from:

"I don't know if the information on the HTML document about Bing Maps is correct or not."
to
"I think the information on the HTML document about Bing maps is correct"

Is it very clear that Bing maps uses multiple different distance algorithms? How do you reach that conclusion? What are these alternative algorithms? Why would you need them?

There is the longitude and latitude red pin distance calculator. (I have not corroborated those distances)
There is a driving distance algorithm (I have used the odometer on my car to corroborate this one)
There is a walking distance algorithm(I have used various map walking trackers and the odometer on my car to corroborate this one)

You've said many times that you consider Bing maps to be accurate, so what's your position now, is it always accurate, usually accurate, sometimes accurate?

The driving distances, based on the extensive driving that I've done, appear to be mostly accurate.
The walking distances, based on the small localized area that I walk, appear to be mostly accurate.
The mass transit distances I've never tested.
The red pin distances I've never done any testing on and I have no idea if they are, or are not, accurate or how they are calculated.

[robinofloxley]

You've said many times that you consider Bing maps to be accurate, so what's your position now, is it always accurate, usually accurate, sometimes accurate?

The driving distances, based on the extensive driving that I've done, appear to be mostly accurate.
The walking distances, based on the small localized area that I walk, appear to be mostly accurate.
The mass transit distances I've never tested.
The red pin distances I've never done any testing on and I have no idea if they are, or are not, accurate or how they are calculated.

I take it from this that you now have doubts about the accuracy of the "red pin" distances, on the basis that you've not personally tested them. This makes the whole exercise of trying to persuade you of the underlying method (Haversine) rather pointless if you aren't going to believe the results it gives you are accurate. In fact you now seem to believe only driving and walking distances are to be trusted. This does not fit with your earlier statements on the accuracy of Bing maps distances...

https://www.bing.com/maps represents the earth as a flat plane and has an interactive scale and I believe is an accurate map which supports the distances and measurements corroborated by measured flight/shipping/travel distances and times and is also supported by modern cartography.

Here you mention flights and shipping. As far as I am aware you can't drive or walk across oceans, yet here you claim these distances are correct in Bing.

You've been shown many examples of these "red pin" distances before in this thread, as far back as page 3, yet this is the first time you've cast doubt on their accuracy.

I then went to Bing Maps and measured the same, SFO to HKG, and got this:

And guess what, same exact distance, 6,927 mi

Because that is the distance between those points regardless of if the earth is a sphere, spheroid, oblate spheroid, or any other shape.

Here stack has showed you a "red pin" distance. You've not challenged the accuracy, you seem quite happy to accept it is correct and that it simply "is the distance between those points". Have you changed your mind?

[iamcpc]

I take it from this that you now have doubts about the accuracy of the "red pin" distances, on the basis that you've not personally tested them. This makes the whole exercise of trying to persuade you of the underlying method (Haversine) rather pointless if you aren't going to believe the results it gives you are accurate. In fact you now seem to believe only driving and walking distances are to be trusted. This does not fit with your earlier statements on the accuracy of Bing maps distances...

When I made my previous statement I was unaware of this red pin distance. Furthermore I have not witnessed or experience anything to determine the accuracy of the red pin distance.

This blog says that the distance is calculated using the Bing Maps Route API. There is no way for me to corroborate if this is correct or not.
https://blogs.bing.com/maps/2017-10/bing-maps-distance-matrix-api-launches-today

Here you mention flights and shipping. As far as I am aware you can't drive or walk across oceans, yet here you claim these distances are correct in Bing.

You've been shown many examples of these "red pin" distances before in this thread, as far back as page 3, yet this is the first time you've cast doubt on their accuracy.

The distances between California and Japan are verified by the thousands and millions of people who travel between those two places every year. The distance between California and Japan is not the same thing as the calculated distance between red dot A and red dot B using an unknown distance calculation formula.

Here stack has showed you a "red pin" distance. You've not challenged the accuracy, you seem quite happy to accept it is correct and that it simply "is the distance between those points". Have you changed your mind?

I'm not challenging the distances because I have no reason to think they are incorrect. I also have no reason to KNOW they are correct. Furthermore I have not witnessed or experience anything to determine the accuracy of the red pin distance.

[stack]

Here you mention flights and shipping. As far as I am aware you can't drive or walk across oceans, yet here you claim these distances are correct in Bing.

You've been shown many examples of these "red pin" distances before in this thread, as far back as page 3, yet this is the first time you've cast doubt on their accuracy.

The distances between California and Japan are verified by the thousands and millions of people who travel between those two places every year. The distance between California and Japan is not the same thing as the calculated distance between red dot A and red dot B using an unknown distance calculation formula.

But, essentially, it is the same calculated distance following a great circle. Here's a flight from SF to Tokyo on March 31st. Note the great circle dashed line versus the actual flight path. Flight distance, including taxiing and such was 8305 km or 5160 miles.



Compare that to the "red pin" A to B measurement, SF to Tokyo, on Bing Maps. 8325 km or 5173 miles. A difference of 13 miles.



If it were a straight line distance, aka Rhumb line, following the latitude and not the great circle, the distance in Bing should be reported as 8738 km or 5429 miles, a difference of 256 miles:



So you see, this "unknown distance calculation" you refer to is not unknown. It's a great circle globe measurement in Bing.

[robinofloxley]

Here you mention flights and shipping. As far as I am aware you can't drive or walk across oceans, yet here you claim these distances are correct in Bing.

You've been shown many examples of these "red pin" distances before in this thread, as far back as page 3, yet this is the first time you've cast doubt on their accuracy.

The distances between California and Japan are verified by the thousands and millions of people who travel between those two places every year. The distance between California and Japan is not the same thing as the calculated distance between red dot A and red dot B using an unknown distance calculation formula.

You are happy with the distances between California and Japan, so if I asked you what is the distance between say San Francisco airport (SFO) and Tokyo airport (HND), what is this figure? Where did your information come from? Why do you trust this source? If for some reason you can't give me that specific figure, then give me an alternative trustworthy figure (plus source) for any two places in California and Japan.

Follow up question, can you explain how you check that distance on Bing maps? i.e. can you talk me through how I would do that. Obviously I could use the "red pin" method, but you have some doubts about that, so how else can this be done?

[iamcpc]

You are happy with the distances between California and Japan, so if I asked you what is the distance between say San Francisco airport (SFO) and Tokyo airport (HND), what is this figure? Where did your information come from? Why do you trust this source? If for some reason you can't give me that specific figure, then give me an alternative trustworthy figure (plus source) for any two places in California and Japan.

Follow up question, can you explain how you check that distance on Bing maps? i.e. can you talk me through how I would do that. Obviously I could use the "red pin" method, but you have some doubts about that, so how else can this be done?

You can fly nonstop from LA to Tokyo in like 10-11 hours. 

If you know what type of plane you are on you can estimate the top speed of the plane with information online.
In addition I know a couple of people who work on planes who have corroborated the speed information about the planes found online.
In addition each plane is equipped with something that can measure speed.
If you are in a large passenger plane and not allowed into the cockpit to see the speedometer you can ask a flight attendant what your cruising speed is.

You take your miles per hour speed estimate and multiply the number of hours spent flying to come up with a distance estimate.

You can do the same for shipping times although I've never taken a ship to Japan. I trust that hundreds of thousands of people who have done international shipping have done this.