164m. is quite a close fit and wouldn't need much jiggling to form a better fit. If it's over the hill, and out of sight, it could be an error
Actually, I take it back, an error of 164 m in a mile would make them lousy surveyors, hill or no hill. A few sticks and a bit of string would get you much closer than that.
Reply | with quote | Posted by nigelswift 4th December 2006ce 19:11 |
Silbaby alignment (Watkins ,Michell revisited) (tiompan, Dec 04, 2006, 09:56)- Re: Silbaby alignment (Watkins ,Michell revisited) (nigelswift, Dec 04, 2006, 11:07)
- Re: Silbaby alignment (Watkins ,Michell revisited) (nigelswift, Dec 04, 2006, 11:09)
- Re: Silbaby alignment (Watkins ,Michell revisited) (tiompan, Dec 04, 2006, 11:28)
- Re: Silbaby alignment (Watkins ,Michell revisited) (tiompan, Dec 04, 2006, 16:33)
- Re: Silbaby alignment (Watkins ,Michell revisited) (tiompan, Dec 04, 2006, 17:47)
- Re: Silbaby alignment (Watkins ,Michell revisited) (fitzcoraldo, Dec 04, 2006, 18:12)
- Re: Silbaby alignment (Watkins ,Michell revisited) (nigelswift, Dec 04, 2006, 18:21)
- Re: Silbaby alignment (Watkins ,Michell revisited) (StoneLifter, Dec 04, 2006, 18:59)
- Re: Silbaby alignment (Watkins ,Michell revisited) (tiompan, Dec 04, 2006, 19:11)
- Re: Silbaby alignment (Watkins ,Michell revisited) (StoneLifter, Dec 04, 2006, 19:26)
- Re: Silbaby alignment (Watkins ,Michell revisited) (nigelswift, Dec 04, 2006, 19:27)
- Re: Silbaby alignment (Watkins ,Michell revisited) (tiompan, Dec 04, 2006, 19:43)
- Maps (Pete G, Dec 04, 2006, 19:49)
- Re: Maps (tiompan, Dec 04, 2006, 19:56)
- Re: Maps (Pete G, Dec 04, 2006, 20:03)
- Re: Maps (fitzcoraldo, Dec 04, 2006, 20:48)
- Re: Maps (Pete G, Dec 04, 2006, 20:57)
- Re: Maps (tiompan, Dec 04, 2006, 21:30)
- Re: Maps (Pete G, Dec 04, 2006, 21:33)
- Re: GPS (baza, Dec 04, 2006, 21:53)
- Re: GPS (baza, Dec 04, 2006, 21:59)
- Re: GPS (Pete G, Dec 04, 2006, 22:15)
- Re: GPS (tiompan, Dec 04, 2006, 22:22)
- Re: Silbaby alignment (Watkins ,Michell revisited) (fitzcoraldo, Dec 04, 2006, 11:21)
|
|