Subject: Re: double line bug & nautical miles<br/>
Date: Nov 23, 2001 @ 20:35<br/>
Author: Grant Hutchison (&quot;Grant Hutchison&quot; &lt;granthutchison@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="4627.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4631.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic4627.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="4629.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4631.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1744049500">Michael:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; received values continue to proliferate from exactly 6076 feet to well<br/>
&gt; beyond 6077 ft  for it does now appear that the most prestigious<br/>
&gt; authorities agree only upon exactly  6076 feet & 1 tenth  yes 6076point1<br/>
&gt; period  tho many others still variegate crazily into 4 decimal places  <br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>I can variegate better than that - it says here the US nautical mile<br/>
was defined in 1954 as exactly 6076.11549ft.<br/>
Here in the UK we rejoice under a nautical mile that is supposed to be<br/>
equal to one minute of longitude at the equator: 6082.66ft. Out of a<br/>
sense of reality, the Admiralty rounded this to one &quot;Admiralty mile&quot;:<br/>
6080ft.<br/>
Does anyone know why the US went for such unfeasibly submillimetric<br/>
accuracy?<br/>
<br/>
Grant</div>