I wasn't suggesting not using metric equivalents, having been part of the last Australian generation to learn both Imperial and metric systems - we got our dollars and cents in 1966 and most of the others in the decade after that. The rule might be to quote the original measure where it provides interpretation of the maker's or users intent, and the current accepted measure for the conversion and for other non-cultural measurements. 

Gary Vines
Archaeologist
mobile: 0428 526 898 
mailto:[log in to unmask] 

Biosis Research Pty. Ltd. 
Natural and Cultural Heritage Consultants 
322 Bay Street (PO Box 489)
Port Melbourne Vic 3207 
ph: (03) 9646 9499 
fax: (03) 9646 9242 
___________________________________ 




-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Porter [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 September 2003 1:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Measurements


And, more importantly, researchers 100 years from now who, by then, will
have gone through about two generations of the universal use of metrics,
will understand it too.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel H. Weiskotten" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: Measurements


> That's why you would say it:
>
> "a three chain road (49.5 feet, 60.35 meters) 640 acre section (259
> hectares) with 1 mile (1.61 km) frontage to roads."
>
> That way we all understand it and nothing is lost.
>
>          Dan W.
>
>
>
> At 09:49 AM 9/10/2003 +1000, you wrote:
> >I am another for measuring in the original units. Even at the broader
> >scale, when colonial regulations demanded road widths and sections
> >surveyed to a standard, the following make no sense in metric
> >
> >60.3504 metre Road
> >258.998811 hectare Section
> >1.609344 km frontage;
> >
> >which were set out as the three chain road (width of reserve), 640 acre
> >section with 1 mile frontage to roads.
> >
> >Gary Vines
>