I don't understand the purpose of a nautical mile. It's just a certain number of metres, right? Originally worked out as some percentage of the distance around the equator.
Why not use the standard measurement for distance?
Because maps for naval navigation are based on degrees latitude and longitude. So if you travel at sixty nautical miles per hour in latitudinal direction on this globe you will end up one degree further away from where you started. Angles are important in naval applications as well as aeronautical because ships and airplanes can and mostly do travel in straight lines.
One nautical mile is equal to 1.852 km good luck using that kind of number and converting it to meaningful information on the fly.
With digital systems it is of course not as important anymore (also they are using the metric definition and converting it to nautical miles internally) but courses are still plotted by hand on maps (eg. as a backup solution if your digital system goes belly up). Having a measuring system where one unit corresponds to something meaningful with little need to pronounce decimals all of the time seems like a good idea to me.
So for example you can travel 111.12km in latitudinal direction or 60 nautical miles which is equal to one degree latitudinal distance.
60 is properly divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12 and so on so it makes quick mental calculations easier.
The unit just makes sense for the application it is designed for.
I might be getting my latitude and longitude confused- but I think that one degree of latitudal (east-west, right?) travel would result in a different distance depending on how far north or south I am? I'm thinking of it like walking around the equator, as opposed to walking in a circle around Santa's house, which is obviously directly on top of the north pole.
But if I travel one degree of longitude, no matter where I am the distance would be the same, right?
I don't understand the purpose of a nautical mile. It's just a certain number of metres, right? Originally worked out as some percentage of the distance around the equator.
Why not use the standard measurement for distance?
Because maps for naval navigation are based on degrees latitude and longitude. So if you travel at sixty nautical miles per hour in latitudinal direction on this globe you will end up one degree further away from where you started. Angles are important in naval applications as well as aeronautical because ships and airplanes can and mostly do travel in straight lines.
One nautical mile is equal to 1.852 km good luck using that kind of number and converting it to meaningful information on the fly.
With digital systems it is of course not as important anymore (also they are using the metric definition and converting it to nautical miles internally) but courses are still plotted by hand on maps (eg. as a backup solution if your digital system goes belly up). Having a measuring system where one unit corresponds to something meaningful with little need to pronounce decimals all of the time seems like a good idea to me.
So for example you can travel 111.12km in latitudinal direction or 60 nautical miles which is equal to one degree latitudinal distance.
60 is properly divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12 and so on so it makes quick mental calculations easier.
The unit just makes sense for the application it is designed for.
I'm trying to understand what I'm missing.
I might be getting my latitude and longitude confused- but I think that one degree of latitudal (east-west, right?) travel would result in a different distance depending on how far north or south I am? I'm thinking of it like walking around the equator, as opposed to walking in a circle around Santa's house, which is obviously directly on top of the north pole.
But if I travel one degree of longitude, no matter where I am the distance would be the same, right?