Although the Earth's dimensions could be described in the manner you have mentioned, as well as other's you cite, I still find those descriptions too vague and imprecise to take seriously. The Earth can be described in much better terms using the dimensions of the GP than those descriptions. Here's one I posted on this board over 11 yrs. ago that didn't get much attention then.
My how the time has flown since those early days, LOL! So maybe it's time for a revision of those figures now to better describe the current Earth model I have been formulating for over a decade now. Using your own figure of the height of the GP, instead of that generic value I posted, as 481.25 Ft./Mi x 640sq. units = 197,120,000 sq. Mi. surface area of the Earth. That area value can be reverse factored back to the usual Diameter/Circ. units according to the formula 4PiRsq. But to make it more interesting, how about I let the Canonical Earth 3960 Mi. radius, be the value sq. as the divisor of 197,120,000 Mi. / 4 = Pi ratio 3.142536476. Now what makes this Pi value interesting, goes back to another of my topic posts a few yrs. ago when I was doing some volumetric research on units mentioned here:
Where I mention a small discrepancy between this Volumetric Circ. value and the one John Michell used to describe the Earth in his Canonical Model of 24,883.2 Mi. Circ. Using the ratio flattening value 440/441 between the Polar radius and the Canonical Mean Radius. That discrepancy being the:
<The ratio in this case is 9801/9800 called the Kalisma-Gauss comma, found in the 11-Limit series of units.>
So now what do you suppose the discrepancy ratio between the Pi value I posted and the Pi value 22/7 is in this situation? The same of course. The World remains a Chessboard of chessboards, to me anyhow LOL!