This is a good opportunity to discuss and illustrate how coordinate representations of tensorial objects can really obscure their true nature.
Suppose I have a metric $\mathrm ds^2=(c\mathrm dt)^2−\mathrm dx^2−(A\mathrm dy)^2−\mathrm dz^2$, with $A$ a constant (larger than zero and independent of $x,y,z,t$).
At a glance, it appears that this metric encodes some kind of spatial anisotropy - that distances in the $y$ direction are somehow different from distances in the $x$ and $z$ directions. But this is not the case. Note that if we start with ordinary Minkowski spacetime with $\mathrm ds^2 = c^2 \mathrm dt^2 - \mathrm dx^2 - \mathrm dy^2 - \mathrm dz^2$ and then perform a coordinate transformation $(ct,x,y,z)\mapsto (ct',x',y',z') = (ct,x,y/A,z)$, we would obtain your expression; in that sense, the presence of the constant $A$ is a coordinate artifact.
We can define the proper length $L_p$ of a measuring rod to be $\int \sqrt{-\mathrm ds^2}$ where the integral is taken along the unique$^\ddagger$ geodesic which connects the endpoints of the rod at fixed $t$, in an inertial frame in which the rod is at rest. This is a coordinate-independent definition which gives
$$L_p = \int \sqrt{\mathrm dx^2 + A^2\mathrm dy^2 + \mathrm dz^2}$$
If one end of the rod is placed at the origin and the other end is placed at some position $x_0$ on the $x$-axis, then we would have $L_p = \int_0^{x_0} \mathrm dx =x_0$. This is just what you'd expect. However, if we place the rod along the $y$-axis, then we find that $L_p = \int_0^{y_0} A \mathrm dy = Ay_0 \implies y_0 = L_p/A$.
The interpretation is simple - the $y$-coordinate is just stretched by a factor of $A$ relative to the $x$- and $z$-coordinates. There's no interesting physics at work here, we've just picked a weird way to label points in spacetime. The proper distance (again, taken along the unique geodesic at fixed $t$) between the origin and the point $y=1$ on the $y$-axis is $A$ times larger than the proper distance between the origin and the point $x=1$ on the $x$-axis; if it takes $N$ measuring rods to span the latter distance, it will take $N\cdot A$ rods to span the former.
Now suppose there is also a cross-term $B\mathrm dy \mathrm dt$ in the metric ($B$ a constant unequal to zero). Does this change the number of measuring sticks needed to reach $y=1$?
No. Note that once again, this is a weird coordinate artifact. If we start in Minkowski spacetime with a metric $\mathrm ds^2 = c^2 \mathrm dt^2 - \mathrm dx^2 - \mathrm dy^2 - \mathrm dz^2$ and then perform the coordinate transformation $$(ct,x,y,z)\mapsto (ct',x',y',z') = \left( \sqrt{1-\left(\frac{B}{2A}\right)^2} ct, x, \frac{y + \frac{B}{2A}\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{B}{2A}\right)^2}ct}{A}, z\right)$$
$$\implies (ct,x,y,z) = \left(\frac{ct'}{\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{B}{2A}\right)^2}},x',Ay'-\frac{B}{2A} ct', z'\right)$$
then your new metric will be (dropping the primes)
$$\mathrm ds^2 = c^2 \mathrm dt^2 - \mathrm dx^2 - A^2 \mathrm dy^2 - Bc\mathrm dt \mathrm dy - \mathrm dz^2$$
The oddness of this metric once again reflects the fact that we are using odd coordinates; this time, we are scaling both $y$ and $t$ and choosing our coordinate origin to be moving with velocity $\frac{B}{2A}\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{B}{2A}\right)^2}c$ in the $y$-direction (I've implicitly assumed that $B/2A < 1$ for this transformation).
In any case, since this can be obtained from the Minkowski metric via a simple coordinate transformation, physical predictions must be the same. If you go through the argument with the measuring rods again, we will be taking measurements at constant $t$ which means that the $\mathrm dt\mathrm dy$ term will drop out and everything else will be the same.
$^\ddagger$In general, if you fix your timelike coordinate to some constant value and then choose two points on the resulting time slice, there will not be a unique geodesic joining the two. Even if there is, for curved spacetimes there are generally no global inertial frames, so this construction is generally ambiguous.