No! And it's pretty easy to find counterexamples (where the cartesian distances
are ranked opposite to the geodesic distances). For example, for the
WGS84 ellipsoid, pick 3 points with positions
positions (latitude longitude in degrees).
point0 = (-21, 0)
point1 = ( 45, 27)
point2 = (-32, 79)
geodesic distances to point0 (in meters)
s01 = 7805205.225
s02 = 7803524.684
s02-s01 = -1680.541
i.e., point 2 is closer to point 0
cartesian distances to point0 (in meters)
c01 = 7322504.559
c02 = 7326441.695
c02-c01 = 3937.136
i.e., point 1 is closer to point 0
This isn't a particularly common outcome. However, it certainly happens
(with probability roughly 5/10000 for the WGS84 ellipsoid). And the
discrepancy in the differences of the distances is reasonably large (on
the order of kilometers).
ADDENDUM: If you have a single set of points and you want repeat
the closest distance calcution for multiple reference points, put
your point set (size N
) into a vantage point tree. Then the cost of a single closest distance
calculation is O(log(N))
instead of N
.