On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 03:19:52PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Pedro Neves <[email protected]> wrote: > >> But do metric divers really prefer "21m/24m" to "20m/25m"? > > > > I sure do... > > .. but maybe that's just me... > > The metric PADI tables do something odd, and go in two-meter > increments from 10m to 22m, and then they switch to 5m increments > (well, except for that least entry, which is at 42m). > > I'd guess that tech divers don't care too much about the PADI > recreational tables, but presumably a lot of divers learnt to dive > that way. > > Trying to find any metric dive plans with google and failing pretty > badly. But the V-Planner FAQ seems to have examples that seem to be > more along the lines of a mixture of "round metric numbers, except at > the shallower end". > > So it looks like there's not much of a real rule. I guess 3m is as > good as anything.
My understanding is that the whole 3m thing is indeed a left over from the US 10ft based tables. And that apparently a few organizations in Europe have tried to switch to multiples of 5m but have pretty much given up. I suggest we stay with the 3m multiples until we have complaints (and someone shows us a schema that we can implement...) /D _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
