You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
While taking a look at #2475 noticed turf-rhumb-bearing returns a valid bearing for a line of zero length (its points are coincident).
For example, passing the line [5, 5] -> [5, 5] into turf returns a bearing of 0 (North). This doesn't seem quite right. I understand that's what the math spits out. However, logically how can we say this line runs North? Or alternatively that it doesn't run South?
It should be invalid as it can't be determined. As a comparision Geodesy currently includes a specific check for this and returns NaN.
Please provide the following when reporting an issue:
Turf version: 6.5.0
Code snippet: Pass points at [5, 5] and [5, 5] into turf-rhumb-bearing and get a value of 0
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
While taking a look at #2475 noticed turf-rhumb-bearing returns a valid bearing for a line of zero length (its points are coincident).
For example, passing the line [5, 5] -> [5, 5] into turf returns a bearing of 0 (North). This doesn't seem quite right. I understand that's what the math spits out. However, logically how can we say this line runs North? Or alternatively that it doesn't run South?
It should be invalid as it can't be determined. As a comparision Geodesy currently includes a specific check for this and returns NaN.
Please provide the following when reporting an issue:
Turf version: 6.5.0
Code snippet: Pass points at [5, 5] and [5, 5] into turf-rhumb-bearing and get a value of 0
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: