Rounded to the nearest metre

I've got this maths textbook and it came out like this:

√4432 = 66.57326791
      = 66 m to the nearest metre.

Why isn't it 67 m to the nearest metre? Is this a typo?

Indeed, but if you are to put this in context it could be true. For example if I were to install a pool that was √4432m long then I would need a piece of land longer than 66.57326791m therefore 67m would be correct to the nearest metre.

1) √4432 = 66.57326791

2) √4432 = √4√1108 = 2*33.287
   = 66

...probably someone bad at math or with a shitty calculator rounded in a dumb place.  this might be one of those stupid tests to see how well you can handle significant figures and rounding at the same time when real scientists can keep lots of digits until the last possible moment.

I know there's some ass-backwards method of rounding numbers that END in a five based on whether the previous digit was even or odd.

But since that number does not end in a five, I'd definitely say it's just a typo. I've never heard of a rounding method that would work that poorly.

Unless they're just truncating. But truncating =/= rounding.
Truncating = truncating.