<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Calculating GE Altitude from GIS Scale</title>
	<atom:link href="http://priour.wordpress.com/2006/07/08/calculating-ge-altitude-from-gis-scale/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://priour.wordpress.com/2006/07/08/calculating-ge-altitude-from-gis-scale/</link>
	<description>The (mis)Adventures of a self-taught developer</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:29:42 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=MU</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: ArcGIS-User</title>
		<link>http://priour.wordpress.com/2006/07/08/calculating-ge-altitude-from-gis-scale/#comment-3627</link>
		<dc:creator>ArcGIS-User</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:36:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://priour.wordpress.com/2006/07/08/calculating-ge-altitude-from-gis-scale/#comment-3627</guid>
		<description>Nice work! Do you think using a different map unit (e.g. miles/degrees instead of meters) can affect the result?
I am not sure which influence the map unit does have on the map scale.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice work! Do you think using a different map unit (e.g. miles/degrees instead of meters) can affect the result?<br />
I am not sure which influence the map unit does have on the map scale.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AGXcellent? Not Quite Yet. &#171; Matt Priour : Dot Net Without a Net</title>
		<link>http://priour.wordpress.com/2006/07/08/calculating-ge-altitude-from-gis-scale/#comment-242</link>
		<dc:creator>AGXcellent? Not Quite Yet. &#171; Matt Priour : Dot Net Without a Net</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2006 04:38:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://priour.wordpress.com/2006/07/08/calculating-ge-altitude-from-gis-scale/#comment-242</guid>
		<description>[...] Should offer to read .lyr files in addition to shape files. All the styling info it needs, including visiblity scaling has already been recorded there. Why should I have to go through all that again, using unfamilar scales of km or mi above earth&#8217;s surface. (By the way to help with that you can use the formula provided in an earlier post) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Should offer to read .lyr files in addition to shape files. All the styling info it needs, including visiblity scaling has already been recorded there. Why should I have to go through all that again, using unfamilar scales of km or mi above earth&#8217;s surface. (By the way to help with that you can use the formula provided in an earlier post) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
