In regard to "exact" accuracy, spotted this article a few weeks ago in
regard to the Japanese earthquake:
https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/society/noto-peninsula-earthquake/20240111-161375/
70cm / 28" to 2m / 6'6" horizontal & 3cm / 1.25" to 1.3m / 4'4" vertical
movement! :-(
Thanks
Graeme
On
On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 7:06 PM Greg Troxel wrote:
> As someone not happy about the deprecation of mailinglists, a few brief
> comments here:
>
> First, I think this proposal is fine, as documenting widespread
> practice. Regardless of my further comments, I think it's solidly
> progress
0.3048 m according to my ConvertPad app on my phone - and according to
Wikipedia (so that must be true!)
Regards,Peter
(PeterPann99)
On Sunday, 28 January 2024 at 19:36:06 GMT, Philip Barnes
wrote:
The legal definition of a foot is of course 0.348 m.
"Since an international
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
wrote:
>Vào lúc 04:08 2024-01-28, Greg Troxel đã viết:
>> Minh Nguyen
Vào lúc 04:08 2024-01-28, Greg Troxel đã viết:
Minh Nguyen 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
Minh Nguyen 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
>>
