How is relative location different from absolute location?

Answer 1

Relative location is a valid concept, whereas absolute location is a term made up by people who choose to ignore the inherently relative nature of coordinate systems.

Statements such as "The absolute location of St. Louis Missouri 38°43' North 90°14' West" have been used to illustrate what an absolute location is. However, there are implicit words in this sentence, words which are omitted because it would be superfluous to say it every time when quoting coordinates. A fuller version of this sentence would be:-

"St. Louis Missouri is 38°43' North of the equator and 90°14' West of the prime meridian"

Putting aside definitions of degrees, minutes, north, west, equator and prime meridian (all of which need a precise definition to find St. Louis Missouri), it can clearly be seen that this location is defined relative to something else (i.e., the equator and the prime meridian). Hence, this is a relativelocation.

It is impossible to define a location in a useful way without reference to some coordinate system. Whether the origin of this coordinate system is your house (as in "The ice cream parlor is 4 blocks NW of my house") or the crossing of the equator and the prime meridian (as in "The ice cream parlor is located at 38°43' N 90°14' W), or even relative to yourself (as in "I am in the ice cream parlor"), you are always defining the location relative to something.

Even a street address is a relative location: it is a location relative to the arbitrary naming and numbering system imposed by the local planning authority.

Though the term absolute location has been demonstrated to be relative in nature, there is a fairly clear difference in absolute and relative location in practical application. They should remain "separate" in light of the way we use them. We might be better off talking about this through the use of a couple of examples.

If we set up a gun to lob shells on a fortified position and we dig in exactly south of the target, we point the barrel north. If we set up west of the target, the barrel points east. We do this because of the concept of relative location. And don't even think of trying to give driving directions to someone using absolute locations. You'll only confuse the issue. But if we are orienteering, we need to differentiate absolute locations from the relative locations that will allow us to plot courses to objectives. A smart munition like a cruise missile does this automatically. It has been given an absolute location for a target, and gets its own absolute location via GPS. It then finds its relative location and plots a course.

Though absolute location is really relative, they are distinct terms that each have valid applications in the real world. And, though the idea that absolute location is really relative is one we should be familiar with, we would be wise to "keep 'em separated" and be capable of using them independently of each other, and thus correctly.

Answer 2

Relative location is a valid concept, whereas absolute location is a term made up by people who choose to ignore the inherently relative nature of coordinate systems.

Statements such as "The absolute location of St. Louis Missouri 38°43' North 90°14' West" have been used to illustrate what an absolute location is. However, there are implicit words in this sentence, words which are omitted because it would be superfluous to say it every time when quoting coordinates. A fuller version of this sentence would be:-

"St. Louis Missouri is 38°43' North of the equator and 90°14' West of the prime meridian"

Putting aside definitions of degrees, minutes, north, west, equator and prime meridian (all of which need a precise definition to find St. Louis Missouri), it can clearly be seen that this location is defined relative to something else (i.e., the equator and the prime meridian). Hence, this is a relativelocation.

It is impossible to define a location in a useful way without reference to some coordinate system. Whether the origin of this coordinate system is your house (as in "The ice cream parlor is 4 blocks NW of my house") or the crossing of the equator and the prime meridian (as in "The ice cream parlor is located at 38°43' N 90°14' W), or even relative to yourself (as in "I am in the ice cream parlor"), you are always defining the location relative to something.

Even a street address is a relative location: it is a location relative to the arbitrary naming and numbering system imposed by the local planning authority.

Though the term absolute location has been demonstrated to be relative in nature, there is a fairly clear difference in absolute and relative location in practical application. They should remain "separate" in light of the way we use them. We might be better off talking about this through the use of a couple of examples.

If we set up a gun to lob shells on a fortified position and we dig in exactly south of the target, we point the barrel north. If we set up west of the target, the barrel points east. We do this because of the concept of relative location. And don't even think of trying to give driving directions to someone using absolute locations. You'll only confuse the issue. But if we are orienteering, we need to differentiate absolute locations from the relative locations that will allow us to plot courses to objectives. A smart munition like a cruise missile does this automatically. It has been given an absolute location for a target, and gets its own absolute location via GPS. It then finds its relative location and plots a course.

Though absolute location is really relative, they are distinct terms that each have valid applications in the real world. And, though the idea that absolute location is really relative is one we should be familiar with, we would be wise to "keep 'em separated" and be capable of using them independently of each other, and thus correctly.

Answer 3

Relative location is a valid concept, whereas absolute location is a term made up by people who choose to ignore the inherently relative nature of coordinate systems.

Statements such as "The absolute location of St. Louis Missouri 38°43' North 90°14' West" have been used to illustrate what an absolute location is. However, there are implicit words in this sentence, words which are omitted because it would be superfluous to say it every time when quoting coordinates. A fuller version of this sentence would be:-

"St. Louis Missouri is 38°43' North of the equator and 90°14' West of the prime meridian"

Putting aside definitions of degrees, minutes, north, west, equator and prime meridian (all of which need a precise definition to find St. Louis Missouri), it can clearly be seen that this location is defined relative to something else (i.e., the equator and the prime meridian). Hence, this is a relativelocation.

It is impossible to define a location in a useful way without reference to some coordinate system. Whether the origin of this coordinate system is your house (as in "The ice cream parlor is 4 blocks NW of my house") or the crossing of the equator and the prime meridian (as in "The ice cream parlor is located at 38°43' N 90°14' W), or even relative to yourself (as in "I am in the ice cream parlor"), you are always defining the location relative to something.

Even a street address is a relative location: it is a location relative to the arbitrary naming and numbering system imposed by the local planning authority.

Though the term absolute location has been demonstrated to be relative in nature, there is a fairly clear difference in absolute and relative location in practical application. They should remain "separate" in light of the way we use them. We might be better off talking about this through the use of a couple of examples.

If we set up a gun to lob shells on a fortified position and we dig in exactly south of the target, we point the barrel north. If we set up west of the target, the barrel points east. We do this because of the concept of relative location. And don't even think of trying to give driving directions to someone using absolute locations. You'll only confuse the issue. But if we are orienteering, we need to differentiate absolute locations from the relative locations that will allow us to plot courses to objectives. A smart munition like a cruise missile does this automatically. It has been given an absolute location for a target, and gets its own absolute location via GPS. It then finds its relative location and plots a course.

Though absolute location is really relative, they are distinct terms that each have valid applications in the real world. And, though the idea that absolute location is really relative is one we should be familiar with, we would be wise to "keep 'em separated" and be capable of using them independently of each other, and thus correctly.