this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
204 points (96.4% liked)
Technology
64937 readers
4644 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Triangulation could be more efficient than GPS, in terms of energy use and such
Triangulation of what, exactly? GPS already triangulates your position based on what it receives from multiple satellites, yeah?
Cell towers, in an urban area you're typically within range of a couple.
Triangulation of GPS signals is what allows the System to determine your Position Global(ly)
Phones already do that with cell towers. It's called A-GPS (augmented GPS). Cell towers, wifi, and even bluetooth, are used in addition to GPS/GLONASS/Galileo signals.
Is that the difference between when something like Google Maps has your general location and when it has your specific location?
A-GPS works faster than GPS on its own.
GPS literally triangulates your position using 3 satellites. It's how it works.
No, you need 4 minimum.
Two satellites intersection places you on a circle. (all points possible)
Three satellites intersection places you on two possible points.
The last satellite give you the exact location.
However, the 4th can be omitted if one of the 2 points is not in a sane location. (eg well below the crust). And it's trilateration not triangulation.
The reality is that your phone/device will use like a dozen satellites.
three sats determine your accurate position. the fourth is for clock correction only.
No.
Satellites project a sphere, you need 4 in order to get to a singular point. I've outlined each step. Fourth isn't for clock correction only. And even outlined why sometimes 3 is okay, but that requires additional logic that many gps devices sometimes can't compute, and even outlined that the vast majority of devices will use way more than 4.
https://gisgeography.com/trilateration-triangulation-gps/
https://www.gps.gov/multimedia/tutorials/trilateration/
Deleted your comment because you looked at the last image?
Edit: The images on the site depict the exact thing I've been referencing.
1 satellite = whole sphere of options.
2 satellites = a whole circle of options
3 = 2 points
4 = 1 point.
Uhhh nope, that's incorrect.
The way triangulation works is by essentially measuring distance.
So 1 satellite distance puts you anywhere in a radius (circle) of that satellite.
2 Satellites puts you at 1 of 2 locations where those radiuses intersect.
3 satellites gives you a single location.
That's why it's called triangulation. Tri = 3
Oh boy, where do I even start? This comment is wrong in multiple ways. Let's break it down:
"The way triangulation works is by essentially measuring distance."
"1 satellite distance puts you anywhere in a radius (circle) of that satellite."
"2 Satellites puts you at 1 of 2 locations where those radiuses intersect."
"3 satellites gives you a single location."
"That's why it's called triangulation. Tri = 3"
Final Verdict
This comment is a trainwreck of incorrect terms and flawed explanations. If they meant "trilateration," at least part of it would make sense, but calling it "triangulation" completely ruins their credibility.
So, in short? No, their comment is very incorrect. 🚨
You are not getting a 3 dimensional location. That's why GPS coordinates only exist on 2 planes. You don't know what you're talking about.
Final Verdict
You're not just wrong, you're wrong AND you're a dick about it.
Coordinates on a sphere is a 3 dimensional location. The earth isn't flat.
Edit: Please education yourself before you're so confident in your own bullshit answer. https://gisgeography.com/trilateration-triangulation-gps/ and https://www.gps.gov/multimedia/tutorials/trilateration/
Satellites broadcast a sphere, not a circle. And that sphere doesn't land on the earth as a perfect circle for relatively obvious reason... since the ground isn't perfect flat, nor is the earth perfectly spheroid.
So which coordinate accounts for elevation? Latitude or Longitude?
Lat/Long is only valid if elevation is valid. You can't reference a lat/long that is miles into space... or beneath the crust of the earth.
It's like you're making my point for me.
A watch... or other simple gps device doesn't know what the elevation is.
Only one of the 2 selected points in a 3 satellite setup will be valid. And your device would have no idea which one is valid without elevation knowledge or a 4th satellite. Some devices can figure it out with just 3 satellites. Many/most won't. But ultimately it's the same thing. You need 4 pieces of input. Either 3 satellites AND elevation. Or 4 satellites.
So no. I've not made a point "for" you. You're just ignorant or specifically being obtuse on something you clearly don't understand.
My point, exactly
Which is why they'd need 4 satellites. Read the whole post. Read the given sources. Stop being stupid.
I did read the whole post. Stop being an asshole.
Clearly you didn't... You keep asserting false statements that have already been disproven with sources.
If a watch doesn't "know" elevation (barometer or other sensor providing such information) as the fourth data point... Then it NEEDS 4 satellites to make the data points whole. Making your statements yet again wrong. I've covered the cases... but you keep pushing false statements like "gps is triangulation" (completely incorrect) or "GPS uses 3 satellites" which is also only correct in one very specific case... Where it's largely 4 or more, with reality being more like as many satellites as the device can read the pulses for. Often being a dozen or even more...
I am making accurate and complete statements. You are the one peddling misinformation.
Hell to prove the point... my time server grabs GPS as it's primary source. It grabs up to 12 satellites to sync time. It shows me my sync status for lat/long as well... At 3 satellites it CANNOT get a lock for location OR time. At 4 it gets a weak lock.
I don't. You just aren't paying attention to what I'm saying. You keep arguing up a strawman.
Proven wrong, as it's a "2d" map that only exists on a 3d plane. It's a slice of space that represents the moving target of "ground level". The point that this is a problem to take it as just a "2d map" is that you can't take 3 point readings from on top of a 1000 ft cliff and 3 feet away at the bottom of a cliff and expect 3 point measurements to actually give you accurate measurements since it's just "2d" right? Elevation matters as it needs to be accounted for during the calculations.
Where elevation = ground. As stated...
Then you assert.
Which was in response to a post stating that the watch would need a 4th satellite or "elevation" in order to get a valid GPS value.
And after I further clarified for you how it works... again... and that I was NOT making your point. I assumed you simply didn't understand the point I was actually making.
No... It wasn't your point at all because you asserted that GPS is 3 point triangulation. When it's 4 point Trilateration which only has the option of 3 point when the fourth value of elevation is already known, which the vast majority of devices that use GPS don't know.
What have I straw-manned? Can you point to it? What part of GPS needs 4 nodes/data points is vague?
They should use that in GPS! /s