The legal definition of a foot is of course 0.348 m. "Since an international agreement in 1959, the foot is defined as equal to exactly 0.3048 metres'.
Phil (trigpoint) On 28 January 2024 18:57:45 GMT, Minh Nguyen <[email protected]> wrote: >Vào lúc 04:08 2024-01-28, Greg Troxel đã viết: >> Minh Nguyen <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Vào lúc 19:50 2024-01-27, Brian M. Sperlongano đã viết: >>>> Uh so I did the math, and unless I've got this wrong, the difference >>>> between survey feet and international feet for tagging, let's say, >>>> Mount Everest, is less than seven one-hundredths of an inch. So I'm >>>> really not even sure why we're discussing it beyond the fact that >>>> we're all nerds about this sort of thing. >>> >>> You got me. :-) The actual proposal doesn't mention the foot's two >>> definitions at all, and so far I'm planning to keep it that way. >> >> I think it's important to be definitionally correct, even if it doesn't >> really matter. It's a slippery slope, and pretty soon \pi is 3. > >Poor Indiana. ;-) The definition of the foot would apply to the ' and ft >abbreviations in every context, not just the ele=* key, so I'd suggest >considering it separately, probably without the formality of a vote. The main >unit symbol listing has come together more informally over the years. [1] > >Sooner or later, OpenHistoricalMap will have a lot of fun with this issue... > >[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_features/Units > >-- >[email protected] > > > >_______________________________________________ >Tagging mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
