On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Mark Wagner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:28:17 +0900 > John Willis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Javbw > > > > Side note: > > > > I imagine laundromats could have a whole > > > > Laundromat:foobar=n scheme. > > > > Laundromat:10kg_dryer=8 > > Laundromat:20kg_dryer=2 > > Laundromat:10kg_sidewasher=3 > > Laundromat:20kg_sidewasher=1 > > Laundromat:shoe_washer=1 > > Laundromat:shoe_dryer=1 > > > > Would be the closest laundromat to my house, Kg are approx. > > That wouldn't work too well in the US. Here, capacities are > typically measured in notional "loads": the average laundromat would > have a large number of "single-load" machines, a few "double-load" or > "triple-load" machines, and possibly a side-loading "five-load" machine > for things like quilts or sleeping bags. > Reminds me of going to Liberty Laundry and asking the attendant the first time it came up, "How many loads is a fursuit, anyway?" He eyeballed it and said, "You want the second largest; it'll probably go off balance if you use the largest and might get damaged in a smaller one. This probably isn't making it simpler, but seems when it comes to laundry in the US, there's not really a set "load" size, even though every machine ever at a commercial laundry shows capacities in "loads."
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
