Metrication

[Brandon]

The new survey grids should be built with exactly one square kilometer in size. The number of sides of square which has passed is the number of kilometers passed, and there is a distance marker every one hectometer (100 m / 0.1 km), a total of ten markers per one square. The markers tell distance in hectometers. House numbers in rural areas are based on meters from rural road's starting point, with a house 25,110 meters from start is numbered 25110.


This would be logical. And I wuld like to use hecto- deci- and decameters a lot, since these units are not commonly used in areas that use metric.

So...you want to tear up every road in the state of Oklahoma and move them to be 63% closer? And then what if the new survey grid line goes right through someone's house?

No, existing mile-based roads remain all over US, but any new grids are based on kilometers.

The grids are done, dude.  They're all surveyed in and complete.

[Scott5114]

Yeah, I can't imagine any sort of new construction of grids anywhere in the country that wouldn't just be a continuation of a grid that's already there... if that. In the Plains states, roads were built on the section lines far before anyone lived in them. Out west, new construction isn't necessarily done according to a grid. The older Las Vegas street grid gives way to the very much not-grid of newer Summerlin:

[Poiponen13]

Yeah, I can't imagine any sort of new construction of grids anywhere in the country that wouldn't just be a continuation of a grid that's already there... if that. In the Plains states, roads were built on the section lines far before anyone lived in them. Out west, new construction isn't necessarily done according to a grid. The older Las Vegas street grid gives way to the very much not-grid of newer Summerlin:

But any new grid plan developments would be constructed with ten blocks per kilometer, one block per hectometer. The house numbers would be number of meters from start of street.

[Scott5114]

Yeah, I can't imagine any sort of new construction of grids anywhere in the country that wouldn't just be a continuation of a grid that's already there... if that. In the Plains states, roads were built on the section lines far before anyone lived in them. Out west, new construction isn't necessarily done according to a grid. The older Las Vegas street grid gives way to the very much not-grid of newer Summerlin:

But any new grid plan developments would be constructed with ten blocks per kilometer, one block per hectometer. The house numbers would be number of meters from start of street.

This sure sounds like fictional (made up) things that belong in the fictional section.

[Poiponen13]

Yeah, I can't imagine any sort of new construction of grids anywhere in the country that wouldn't just be a continuation of a grid that's already there... if that. In the Plains states, roads were built on the section lines far before anyone lived in them. Out west, new construction isn't necessarily done according to a grid. The older Las Vegas street grid gives way to the very much not-grid of newer Summerlin:

But any new grid plan developments would be constructed with ten blocks per kilometer, one block per hectometer. The house numbers would be number of meters from start of street.

This sure sounds like fictional (made up) things that belong in the fictional section.

We had a "House numbers" thread in fictional section. It has now been merged with "Poiponen13 in one thread" thread. I think that this thread (just this and not any other threads) should be separated because I would like to discuss house numbers and I don't feel like discussing it in Poiponen13 in one thread because that thread has just an another discussing about holidays underway and I don't want to "spoil" it.

[kphoger]

But any new grid plan developments would be constructed with ten blocks per kilometer, one block per hectometer. The house numbers would be number of meters from start of street.

So...  the streets in that new development wouldn't line up with the streets in the adjoining, existing neighborhoods?  And the house numbers wouldn't correspond either?

Yeah, that's better.[/sarc]

[kphoger]

I think that this thread (just this and not any other threads) should be separated because I would like to blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

I think that 100% of your schlock should be merged into "Poiponen13 in one thread".  You can't always get what you want, and neither can I.

[GaryV]

But any new grid plan developments would be constructed with ten blocks per kilometer, one block per hectometer. The house numbers would be number of meters from start of street.

Why? Every bit of land in the US, developed or not, has already been surveyed. And almost all of that land (excepting old colonial systems) has been surveyed in miles. So there is no new grid plan to be had.

And house numbers start from a central location, not from the start of a street. This is so you can figure out how far from the baseline you need to go to look for an address.

[hotdogPi]

And house numbers start from a central location, not from the start of a street. This is so you can figure out how far from the baseline you need to go to look for an address.

They start at the start of a street in New England.

[Rothman]

And house numbers start from a central location, not from the start of a street. This is so you can figure out how far from the baseline you need to go to look for an address.

They start at the start of a street in New England.

But the starts of streets can be in fun locations in New England.

[kphoger]

Every bit of land in the US, developed or not, has already been surveyed. And almost all of that land (excepting old colonial systems) has been surveyed in miles. So there is no new grid plan to be had.

It gets even better when you consider where the land came from before development.  It's likely that, before the developer bought the land, it was farmland.  In this part of the country, it's likely that such farmland was one square-mile or some power-of-two portion thereof.  So now we must imagine a field, exactly one mile by one mile square, being developed into a residential neighborhood whose streets and house numbers are based on meters.

So, let's say Farmer Brown retires and sells his half-section farm (shown in tan below) to some developers.  The rest of the neighboring town has blocks of one eighth-mile by one sixteenth-mile.  Hope you enjoy the new system!  Hope you like all those unprotected left turns to or from the main roads!  But it's metric, so it must be better...

[kalvado]

Every bit of land in the US, developed or not, has already been surveyed. And almost all of that land (excepting old colonial systems) has been surveyed in miles. So there is no new grid plan to be had.

It gets even better when you consider where the land came from before development.  It's likely that, before the developer bought the land, it was farmland.  In this part of the country, it's likely that such farmland was one square-mile or some power-of-two portion thereof.  So now we must imagine a field, exactly one mile by one mile square, being developed into a residential neighborhood whose streets and house numbers are based on meters.

So, let's say Farmer Brown retires and sells his half-section farm (shown in tan below) to some developers.  The rest of the neighboring town has blocks of one eighth-mile by one sixteenth-mile.  Hope you enjoy the new system!  Hope you like all those unprotected left turns to or from the main roads!  But it's metric, so it must be better...

THose damn T-intersections.. there are only half a million of them on the other side of the grid!

[kphoger]

THose damn T-intersections.. there are only half a million of them on the other side of the grid!

But fewer than 100% percent of them.

Well, I suppose, technically, one kilometer lines up quite well with five-eighths of a mile.  But, of course, the five-eighths-mile street isn't a major road on the other side of that intersection.  And that's my main point:  the major roads won't line up.

[kalvado]

THose damn T-intersections.. there are only half a million of them on the other side of the grid!

But fewer than 100% percent of them.

Well, I suppose, technically, one kilometer lines up quite well with five-eighths of a mile.  But, of course, the five-eighths-mile street isn't a major road on the other side of that intersection.  And that's my main point:  the major roads won't line up.

again, what is the distance between side roads in a usual development?
i don't think there is that packed and organized development pattern over here. If anything, terrain may not cooperate. And the pattern in the picture may look a bit less than optimal. a bit too much access to throughfares

[Poiponen13]

By the way, are there any metric weather forecasts in US newspapers, TV and radio?

[kalvado]

By the way, are there any metric weather forecasts in US newspapers, TV and radio?

.
Do people still read newspapers in Finland??

[MikeTheActuary]

By the way, are there any metric weather forecasts in US newspapers, TV and radio?

Mostly no.   Various online services provide the option to have temperatures and forecasts presented in metric, but actual broadcast weather (or published, to the extent that anyone still reads dead-tree news) is all in American customary measures.

When I started telecommuting to Canada, I made an effort to semi-immerse myself in metric measurements to get to the point where I could engage in social chit-chat without having to pause to do conversions in my head.  Temperature was the one thing I failed to achieve immersion in because of the ubiquitous use of Fahrenheit in broadcast media, my car's temperature display not being user-switchable to Celsius, etc.

[TXtoNJ]

Every bit of land in the US, developed or not, has already been surveyed. And almost all of that land (excepting old colonial systems) has been surveyed in miles. So there is no new grid plan to be had.

It gets even better when you consider where the land came from before development.  It's likely that, before the developer bought the land, it was farmland.  In this part of the country, it's likely that such farmland was one square-mile or some power-of-two portion thereof.  So now we must imagine a field, exactly one mile by one mile square, being developed into a residential neighborhood whose streets and house numbers are based on meters.

So, let's say Farmer Brown retires and sells his half-section farm (shown in tan below) to some developers.  The rest of the neighboring town has blocks of one eighth-mile by one sixteenth-mile.  Hope you enjoy the new system!  Hope you like all those unprotected left turns to or from the main roads!  But it's metric, so it must be better...

Except 1/16 mi ~ 100 m, within range of the average surveying error in the 18th-19th Centuries. That would mean a block 1/16 mi square is essentially 1 hectare, making most metric conversions facile for all but the most specialized purposes.

This is just not a problem.

[JayhawkCO]

By the way, are there any metric weather forecasts in US newspapers, TV and radio?

Mostly no.   Various online services provide the option to have temperatures and forecasts presented in metric, but actual broadcast weather (or published, to the extent that anyone still reads dead-tree news) is all in American customary measures.

When I started telecommuting to Canada, I made an effort to semi-immerse myself in metric measurements to get to the point where I could engage in social chit-chat without having to pause to do conversions in my head.  Temperature was the one thing I failed to achieve immersion in because of the ubiquitous use of Fahrenheit in broadcast media, my car's temperature display not being user-switchable to Celsius, etc.

When I travel internationally, I just make educated guesses. I know 37C is body temp, so when it's hot, I add or subtract a little from that. Then I know 20C is about half of the difference between body temp and freezing, so it's 60 something. Everything else, I just scale in there somewhere.

[CtrlAltDel]

Then I know 20C is about half of the difference between body temp and freezing, so it's 50 something.

That's a bit off, since 20C is 68F. It's also helpful to know that 10C is exactly 50F.

[MikeTheActuary]

By the way, are there any metric weather forecasts in US newspapers, TV and radio?

Mostly no.   Various online services provide the option to have temperatures and forecasts presented in metric, but actual broadcast weather (or published, to the extent that anyone still reads dead-tree news) is all in American customary measures.

When I started telecommuting to Canada, I made an effort to semi-immerse myself in metric measurements to get to the point where I could engage in social chit-chat without having to pause to do conversions in my head.  Temperature was the one thing I failed to achieve immersion in because of the ubiquitous use of Fahrenheit in broadcast media, my car's temperature display not being user-switchable to Celsius, etc.

When I travel internationally, I just make educated guesses. I know 37C is body temp, so when it's hot, I add or subtract a little from that. Then I know 20C is about half of the difference between body temp and freezing, so it's 50 something. Everything else, I just scale in there somewhere.

Functionally that's what I end up doing.   I know that I want the thermostat in my hotel room to be set to 20°C.  My attire is based on 25, 15, 5, -5, and -15°C temperatures.  (Above 25, I want short sleeves.  Below 15 a light jacket.  Below 5 a heavier coat.  And so forth.)

But when talking about the weather in the weekly social Teams events, or when making small talk at the start of meetings, I end up having a weather webpage up set to metric so I can say things like "it's 2 degrees here...." without having to pause to do the conversion from Fahrenheit or diverting the discussion by someone dropping my response into Google to translate.

[JayhawkCO]

Then I know 20C is about half of the difference between body temp and freezing, so it's 50 something.

That's a bit off, since 20C is 68F. It's also helpful to know that 10C is exactly 50F.

Typo. Was supposed to be 60 something.

[J N Winkler]

When I travel internationally, I rarely pay attention to temperatures, full stop.  My strongest memory of having to work with ambient temperatures in Celsius was back in southern Spain in June 2010, when predictions of 40° C triggered heat alerts.

I actually tend to be more worried about rain because wet feet make more of a difference to comfort for me than a 10° increment in temperature (in either unit system) above freezing.

But when talking about the weather in the weekly social Teams events, or when making small talk at the start of meetings, I end up having a weather webpage up set to metric so I can say things like "it's 2 degrees here...." without having to pause to do the conversion from Fahrenheit or diverting the discussion by someone dropping my response into Google to translate.

Temperatures can be tricky in mixed company.  I basically unfollowed a Canadian Facebook friend years ago after she brusquely replied "Use metric" when I quoted measurements in Fahrenheit.  While the demand was not unreasonable in and of itself, the way it was presented made me think I was unwelcome.  Nowadays I try to finesse the problem by referencing thresholds in non-numeric terms such as "freezing," "shirtsleeves weather," etc.

[US 89]

By the way, are there any metric weather forecasts in US newspapers, TV and radio?

Mostly no.   Various online services provide the option to have temperatures and forecasts presented in metric, but actual broadcast weather (or published, to the extent that anyone still reads dead-tree news) is all in American customary measures.

The exception is reporting on minimum central pressures in hurricanes and tropical storms, which even in the US are reported in millibars rather than the customary inches of mercury.

As a meteorologist I have gotten pretty good at making a pretty accurate conversion between F and C very quickly. I have several exact conversions memorized at the top of my head and then estimate from there using a general 2F~1C factor, which isn't the exact 1.8 but it's easier to do in your head:

0C = 32F (freezing)
10C = 50F
20C = 68F
25C = 77F
30C = 86F
35C = 95F
40C = 104F

I'm not as good with below freezing, but I do know that 0F is something around -18C. Of course the scales match at -40 but I've never been close to that cold. If I lived somewhere further north I'd probably be better at those temperatures.

[Scott5114]

I basically unfollowed a Canadian Facebook friend years ago after she brusquely replied "Use metric" when I quoted measurements in Fahrenheit.

I would probably respond to such a request by quoting measurements in kilocelsius or joules or something else discernably metric but altogether unhelpful.