[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Documenting feet as an an optional elevation unit

[Philip Barnes]

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 <minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us> wrote:
>Vào lúc 04:08 2024-01-28, Greg Troxel đã viết:
>> Minh Nguyen <minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us> 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
>
>-- 
>minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20240128/44527b9d/attachment.htm>