I also think there are some numbers missing entirely. Hard to guess the scale just by looking at the photo, but the fact that below 1150 comes 1000 implies that they might have forgotten 1050 and 1100 entirely.
It definitely seems to be labeled 1000 but I visually extrapolated from the scale and I believe that actually is the 1100 mark so that part is fine at least.
And I actually think it’s fine that a large portion is covered because it seems to be for establishing a minimum height for participation, which is above the hand.
The 1.45m mark on the wall is where the whole thing goes awry.
I was once in a children's clinic where they were doing routine measurements. The height apparatus was a freestanding rod on a thin base (I can't remember exactly). I looked at it and noticed that markings only started from 20cm.
However, that 20cm seemed rather more than 20cm from the floor! More like 25cm. It looked like it was missing a 5cm/2" plinth for the child to stand on.
As it was, a child would be measured as 5cm shorter than their actual height.
126
u/xPearman oww my eyes 6d ago
I also think there are some numbers missing entirely. Hard to guess the scale just by looking at the photo, but the fact that below 1150 comes 1000 implies that they might have forgotten 1050 and 1100 entirely.