We should have carried through with the conversion to metric when we tried. It's like an aching tooth. We started to pull it but it hurt so we quit and are letting it fester deeper so it will hurt more when we eventually have to do it.
Bill93, post: 363497, member: 87 wrote: We should have carried through with the conversion to metric when we tried. It's like an aching tooth. We started to pull it but it hurt so we quit and are letting it fester deeper so it will hurt more when we eventually have to do it.
I don't know......I agree with you @ one time, but have had second thoughts. When we went "metric", my thoughts were that "Measurements were Measurements", and we can always convert and do it all the time. We often went from Chains/links to feet, and other states did similar as well as other conversions. We still had to double-annotate everything for the landowner and on our plats with the foot equivalent, and the acre equivalent. It is a standard of our country, and people know their paces, they know what a "one-degree' ark looks like, we have level rods in feet. Yes, we could change it all, but to what end? I guess I don't care if someone pushes for it, and I know that metric is more universal, but, at least in our discipline, feet is a fine measuring system. (And it more closely relates to most legal descriptions and plats that we are interpreting)
spledeus, post: 363167, member: 3579 wrote: My first run in was in RI. 3 firms performing layout work and one used I.Ft. We were the last and the building did not match the driveway by 1.1 feet. Nice and small RI...
What is the biggest difference in SPCS conversion from meters? I get about seven feet here.Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
52' in the Easting in Michigan North Zone(2111).