Hence all houses advertised in the UK showing LxW (in feet, but sometimes metres in brackets after) - this despite no law (I believe) forcing them to do this. Sometimes the market - when left to itself - really does work well. ;-)From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [USMA:42124] RE: BBC web site keeps it metricDate: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:04:16 +0000
This shows what a mess imperial (or colonial) units are. Comparing square feet and fractions of an acre is a nightmare. However, comparing square metres and hectares is a doddle. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael J. Barnes Sent: 03 December 2008 17:51 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:42123] RE: BBC web site keeps it metric Stan, I must disagree about U.S. residential lot sizes being expressed in square feet, at least in my part of the country (New England). Site plans, municipal tax records, real estate listings, and colloquial references are almost exclusively expressed in acres (e.g. .25 acre, .34 acre, 1.00 acre or 1 acre, 1.50 acres, 2.18 acres, etc.). --Mike Barnes >>Residential lot sizes in the US are in square feet. Lot sizes are in acres for farms. It doesn't make sense to use such a large unit as acre or hectare in describing lot size when a more standard and common unit (m, km etc) is available. Stan Doore<< _________________________________________________________________ Live Search presents Big Snap II - win John Lewis vouchers http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/117442309/direct/01/
