Here's a new question geodesic-measurements-for-short-distances-throughout-us. The essence of it is

whether using a geographic coordinate system for US map points and using "Near" to calculate geodesic distances between stadia and downtowns is a sound approach to avoiding issues that would arise from calculating distance based on a projection

It may have been edited again by the time you get to it. I was quick to judge it as a good question, ignoring the bit about "Near", and answered, essentially, yes, geodesic distances are sound vs projected distances. Almost as quick, radouxju (i don't know what his judgement was) answered, essentially, no, the function "Near" does not give geodesic distances.

The problem is, we're both correct because the question, as is/was, includes an invalid assumption. To be corrected, it should be split into two parts:

whether using a geographic coordinate system for US map points and using geodesic distances between stadia and downtowns is a sound approach to avoiding issues that would arise from calculating distance based on a projection

which is a valid conceptual question, and

does using geographic coordinates and "Near" calculate geodesic distances

which is a valid practical question. What's the best way to do this (split the otherwise confusing question into two good questions) cleanly?

BTW, i'm not intending to criticize anyone.

I think it's fine to correct the question's false assumption via an answer rather than splitting it out into two questions.

Sometimes (more often than not, really), a question asker does not have all the insights required to pose the question such that there is only one right answer, and as such many questions will have multiple correct answers.

The "most" correct answer should account for all relevant aspects of the question and will generally be the most thorough in its response.

I think both unclear questions, and multiple questions per Question, are poor practice because they can often lead to a convoluted Q&A.

Ideally, both will be noticed, and brought to the attention of the asker via proposal for closure, so that he/she can clarify the specific Question being asked before Answers are attempted based on more than one clear/perceived question.

When multiple questions in a Question, or unclear Questions, have been addressed by multiple Answers, my preference would be to await some voting and commenting to see which is the more important/interesting Question to retain. At that point edit out the less important/interesting Question and edit the Answers to try and have them answer that now clear Question directly. This may leave some Answers temporarily "stranded", with no relevance to the cleaned up Question, but in that state they are likely to attract a downvote or two, and eventually be deleted by their owner or a system robot.

In other words rather than try to tease them apart, I would prefer to prune such questions back to a single clean Q&A.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .