On 29/1/24 06:30, Philip Barnes wrote:
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)
NPL has a nice history on length measurement
http://resource.npl.co.uk/docs/educate_explore/posters/bg_historyoflength_poster.pdf
Even in the USA the survey foot is depreciated.
https://amerisurv.com/2023/02/09/the-deprecation-of-the-us-survey-foot/
Depreciation in the US may be 'complete', at least in government
circles, in 2025...
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
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
