Is it even that inaccurate? I re-implented the whole thing with Apfloat arbitrary precision and it made no difference which I should have known to start with!!
public static double bearing(LatLng latLng1, LatLng latLng2) {
double deltaLong = toRadians(latLng2.longitude - latLng1.longitude);
double lat1 = toRadians(latLng1.latitude);
double lat2 = toRadians(latLng2.latitude);
double y = sin(deltaLong) * cos(lat2);
double x = cos(lat1) * sin(lat2) - sin(lat1) * cos(lat2) * cos(deltaLong);
double result = toDegrees(atan2(y, x));
return (result + 360.0) % 360.0;
}
@Test
public void testBearing() {
LatLng first = new LatLng(36.0, 174.0);
LatLng second = new LatLng(36.0, 175.0);
assertEquals(270.0, LatLng.bearing(second, first), 0.005);
assertEquals(90.0, LatLng.bearing(first, second), 0.005);
}
The first assertion in the test gives this:
java.lang.AssertionError:
expected:<270.0> but
was:<270.29389750911355>
0.29 seems to quite a long way off? Is this the formula i chose to implement?
If you've done what you seem to have done and done it correctly you have figured out the bearing of A from B along the shortest route from A to B which, on the surface of the spherical (ish) Earth is the arc of the great circle between A and B, NOT the arc of the line of latitude between A and B.
Mathematica's geodetic functions give the bearings, for your test positions, as 89.7061
and 270.294
.
So, it looks as if (a) your calculation is correct but (b) your navigational skills need polishing up.
Are you sure this is due to numeric problems? I must admit, that I don't exactly know what you are trying to calculate, but when you dealing with angles on a sphere, small deviations from what you would expect in euclidian geometry.
java.lang.AssertionError: expected:<270.0> but was:<270.29389750911355>
This 0.29 absolute error represents a relative error of 0.1%. How is this "a long way off"?
Floats will give 7 significant digits; doubles are good for 16. Could be the trig functions or the degrees to radians conversion.
Formula looks right, if this source is to be believed.
If I plug your start and final values into that page, the result that they report is 089°42′22″. If I subtract your result from 360 and convert to degrees, minutes, and seconds your result is identical to theirs. Either you're both correct or you're both wrong.