2 unstable releases

0.2.0 Apr 29, 2020
0.1.0 Apr 29, 2020

#294 in Science

Download history 2654/week @ 2021-08-11 2772/week @ 2021-08-18 2457/week @ 2021-08-25 2770/week @ 2021-09-01 3754/week @ 2021-09-08 3440/week @ 2021-09-15 2988/week @ 2021-09-22 3079/week @ 2021-09-29 3751/week @ 2021-10-06 3510/week @ 2021-10-13 4650/week @ 2021-10-20 3286/week @ 2021-10-27 3322/week @ 2021-11-03 3174/week @ 2021-11-10 3722/week @ 2021-11-17 3259/week @ 2021-11-24

14,187 downloads per month
Used in 34 crates (2 directly)

MIT license

110KB
2.5K SLoC

geographiclib-rs

A subset of geographiclib implemented in Rust.

Documentation

Currently this implements the direct and the inverse geodesic calculations.

If instead you are looking for Rust bindings to Karney's C++ implementation, see https://crates.io/geographiclib.

Examples

// Determine the point 10000 km NE of JFK - the "direct" geodesic calculation.
use geographiclib_rs::{Geodesic, DirectGeodesic};

let g = Geodesic::wgs84();
let jfk_lat = 40.64;
let jfk_lon = -73.78;
let northeast_azimuth = 45.0;

let (lat, lon, az) = g.direct(jfk_lat, jfk_lon, northeast_azimuth, 10e6);

use assert_approx_eq::assert_approx_eq;
assert_approx_eq!(lat, 32.621100463725796);
assert_approx_eq!(lon, 49.05248709295982);
assert_approx_eq!(az,  140.4059858768007);
// Determine the distance between two points - the "inverse" geodesic calculation.
use geographiclib_rs::{Geodesic, InverseGeodesic};

let g = Geodesic::wgs84();
let p1 = (34.095925, -118.2884237);
let p2 = (59.4323439, 24.7341649);
let s12: f64 = g.inverse(p1.0, p1.1, p2.0, p2.1);

use assert_approx_eq::assert_approx_eq;
assert_approx_eq!(s12, 9094718.72751138);

Benchmarking

To compare the direct and inverse geodesic calculation against the geographiclib c bindings, run:

cargo bench

Which produces output like:

     Running target/release/deps/geodesic_benchmark-af6ba4f7be913514
direct (c wrapper)      time:   [34.852 us 34.937 us 35.023 us]                                
                        change: [+1.1137% +1.7246% +2.2864%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has regressed.
Found 9 outliers among 100 measurements (9.00%)
  3 (3.00%) low mild
  6 (6.00%) high mild

direct (rust impl)      time:   [48.862 us 48.959 us 49.059 us]                                
                        change: [+0.0149% +0.8003% +1.5464%] (p = 0.04 < 0.05)
                        Change within noise threshold.
Found 9 outliers among 100 measurements (9.00%)
  1 (1.00%) low mild
  4 (4.00%) high mild
  4 (4.00%) high severe

inverse (c wrapper)     time:   [70.875 us 71.138 us 71.464 us]                                
                        change: [+0.6259% +1.1321% +1.6653%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Change within noise threshold.
Found 8 outliers among 100 measurements (8.00%)
  1 (1.00%) high mild
  7 (7.00%) high severe

inverse (rust impl)     time:   [103.66 us 104.07 us 104.58 us]                                
                        change: [-1.0415% -0.0086% +1.0291%] (p = 0.99 > 0.05)
                        No change in performance detected.
Found 7 outliers among 100 measurements (7.00%)
  1 (1.00%) low mild
  6 (6.00%) high severe

Showing that, at least in this benchmark, the Rust implementation is 40-50% slower than the c bindings.

Dependencies