On 2010\08\08 00:21, Mizter T wrote:

On Aug 7, 11:16 pm, wrote:

In article5xk7o.72047$gM.61947@hurricane, (Roy
Badami) wrote:

On 07/08/10 22:37, Mizter T wrote:

I recently came across an e-commerce site that required one to select
a county from a drop down list, a list which resolutely contained no
reference to London, and wondered whether the proprietor had designed
it as such deliberately...

Living in Cambridge I'm always irritated by sites that require a
county, since no one writes "Cambridge, Cambs." - but at least
Cambridgeshire is normally offered as an option!

If I get a site insisting on a County I tend to put "X". I've not been
refused yet.

Bit hard when it's not in the drop-down list though.

You could settle for SX.

In message oWh7o.113034$Ds3.96847@hurricane, at 19:51:02 on Sat, 7 Aug
2010, Roy Badami remarked:
The county has been optional for a long time.

Ok, Wikipedia tells me the county has been optional since 1996. I was
sure the change was more recent than that, but apparently not.

I'm still curious as to in which places the county wasn't traditionally
written, even prior to 1996. I'm guessing Nottingham would be another
example since "Nottingham, Notts." would be somewhat odd, as you say.

Back in the 70's I would have said that you could leave of the county if
the letter was addressed to someone in the county town.

I presume Nottingham was once the County Town of Notts, although County
Hall is in West Bridgford and (eg) the Police, Fire and much of the
Education department are in different bits of Arnold.
--
Roland Perry

In message
, at
12:59:09 on Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Mizter T remarked:
http://abcounties.co.uk/bpa/bpasection3.htm

Generally seems to be towns with the same name as the county, plus other
towns deemed large and famous enough to not need a county.

I like how that page dutifully lists all the London postcodes and the
olde counties that they're in - though I'm sure that many postcodes
straddle the old boundaries so presumably it's what the county the
majority of the postcode sits in that the author has used.

And guess what - It has Romford (N), Essex. One of the towns that keeps
coming up in the discussion.
--
Roland Perry

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

On Aug 8, 1:08*am, wrote:

(Richard J.) wrote:

wrote on 07 August 2010 23:16:48
...
To amplify my earlier comment on why their London data is utter
oblox, the use of counties in London is obsolete but they overlook
completely that each London postal district also has a name.

There is a name associated with each one* that explains its place
in the numerical order (because the numbers are based on
alphabetical order of the associated names), but I wouldn't go so
far as to say that each postcode *has* a name.

It would cause confusion for an address in Leadenhal Street EC3 to
give also the associated name for EC3 which is Fenchurch Street. *
Is the E16 area still known as Victoria Docks, which is its
associated name?

* Except the "1" Head Districts (W1, SE1 etc.) also W2, SW11.

Possibly not in that example but it's been common all my life in SW15,
Putney, and SW19, Wimbledon, to my knowledge.

Yes, but SW15 also includes Roehampton, and on the eastern edge it
gets pretty close to Wandsworth, plus there's that bit of Kingston
Vale (perhaps it's all of Kingston Vale, dunno where the lines are
drawn round there) down past Robin Hood roundabout.

SW19 meanwhile encompasses, in addition to Wimbledon, also takes in
Colliers Wood (or at least significant chunk thereof), Merton Park,
Summerstown (lesser known 'tis true), stretches to the edge of Morden,
and lastly such as they are distinct places, South Wimbledon and
Wimbledon Park.

So it ain't all quite that simple.

They are all areas known as part of or appended to Putney or Wimbledon.
The only exception, it seems to me, is some confusion over precise
boundaries.

But then Putney is no better defined since the nineteenth century than as
the Putney constituency. When I was a lad that included Wandsworth Town
Hall!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

On Aug 7, 11:56*pm, "Richard J." wrote:

wrote on 07 August 2010 22:50:20 ...

In articleFAj7o.78929$RO5.57792@hurricane, (Roy
Badami) wrote:

On 07/08/10 20:35, Peter Smyth wrote:

It is the post towns with (N) after them in this list

http://abcounties.co.uk/bpa/bpasection3.htm

Generally seems to be towns with the same name as the county, plus
other towns deemed large and famous enough to not need a county.

Thanks - that's exactly what I was looking for!

Except that it's total oblox in the London postal districts. I was
brought up in Putney and no-one but no-one has referred to that as
being in Surrey for over 150 years.

Nevertheless the list is correct in that (a) Surrey is the traditional
county name for Putney, (b) you don't need to put it in the address in
addition to "London", and (c) Royal Mail won't mind if you do include
it, though it sounds as if that's about to change.

No, I don't think Royal Mail is about to start caring about any extras
they don't need, so long as the important bits are in there - this
story is more about information being dropped from their databases.

Look at it another way. How much mail sent to SW15 addresses also mentions
Putney? Quite a lot, I think you'll find. OTOH (to bring this thread back
on topic) the number mentioning Surrey is vanishingly small.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message
,
at 12:59:09 on Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Mizter T remarked:
http://abcounties.co.uk/bpa/bpasection3.htm

Generally seems to be towns with the same name as the county, plus
other towns deemed large and famous enough to not need a county.

I like how that page dutifully lists all the London postcodes and the
olde counties that they're in - though I'm sure that many postcodes
straddle the old boundaries so presumably it's what the county the
majority of the postcode sits in that the author has used.

And guess what - It has Romford (N), Essex. One of the towns that
keeps coming up in the discussion.

It seems very inconsistent with the (N) designation in Essex for some
reason. Both Chelmsford (it is the County town at least) and Colchester
are also so designated.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 8 Aug, 00:44, Mizter T wrote:
On Aug 7, 11:16*pm, wrote:





In article wQj7o.58103$X%4.19734@hurricane, (Roy
Badami) wrote:

On 07/08/10 21:57, Mizter T wrote:

Sure - if we're going by postal counties, then the list on the ABC
website is a nonsense I think - all London postcodes (NW, N, E, W, SW,
SW, WC, EC) are in the post town of "London", and I don't think the
post town of London belongs to any postal county, let alone multiple
postal counties (so "NW4 xxx, Middlesex" for an address in Hendon was
never strictly speaking a correct address).

Yes, the site does actually say: "County names have never been a
part of recommended postal addresses within the "LONDON" postal
area. In fact, the "LONDON" postal area presents something of a
challenge to those who seek to use County names within it."

http://abcounties.co.uk/bpa/bpasection2.htm

To amplify my earlier comment on why their London data is utter oblox, the
use of counties in London is obsolete but they overlook completely that
each London postal district also has a name. They give SW19 as an example
and suggest:

Highbury Road
LONDON
Surrey
SW19 7PR

That example should of course be:

Highbury Road
Wimbledon
LONDON
SW19 7PR

if what is wanted is a more localised address than just "London SW19".

Sorry but I quite strongly disagree with that - I don't think there
has ever been a widespread convention let alone a requirement whereby
the precise London postal district name features in an address.

There are far too many examples in London where the name of the postal
district doesn't properly represent the commonly understood names of
the districts / neighbourhoods / areas it encompasses - in other words
the postal district name isn't coterminous with all the places it
covers are actually known as (though it may reach the levels of being
a broad approximation thereof - and in ambiguous cases people might
fall back on the postcode divide in order to say place a road or an
address in neighbourhood a or neighbourhood b when really it's on the
edge of both).

Don't get me wrong, I do like using a district name for addresses in
London no doubt - it helps to provide for a sense of place - but
merely relying on the postal district name might result in a misplaced
sense of place! Thus I tend to regard postal district names as a guide
rather than an authoritative word.

(Of course, place names can change and shift over time - in a process
that I think is perhaps *somewhat more complex than merely reflecting
the latest whims of estate agents and of gentrification - but that is
I suggest a whole other discussion!)


My insight into the Royal Mail's idea of a "correct" London address
was when I had a redirection in 1993, and they used only

number road
LONDON
postcode

so I've taken that as being "correct" ever since and not stuck in
"Wimbledon", "Catford" or anything else, even though I did use such a
district name as a child in London and had assumed it was correct.

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

My insight into the Royal Mail's idea of a "correct" London address
was when I had a redirection in 1993, and they used only

number road
LONDON
postcode

so I've taken that as being "correct" ever since and not stuck in
"Wimbledon", "Catford" or anything else, even though I did use such a
district name as a child in London and had assumed it was correct.

You're not wrong there, even if a bit unromantic. :-)

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 07/08/10 22:50, wrote:

1996 is a logical date for the change. It's when the estuarial counties
created in 1974 (Avon, Humberside& Cleveland) were abolished, as far as
local government was concerned anyway.

I think that's somewhat coincidental. The Royal Mail has never really
cared if their postal counties are out of date with respect to local
government areas. I think the change is more to do with modernisation
of the post office's sorting systems - with more reliance on the
postcode than other elements of the address.

-roy

In message Xrl7o.19723$Ai7.18779@hurricane, Richard J.
writes

There is a name associated with each one* that explains its place in
the numerical order (because the numbers are based on alphabetical
order of the associated names), but I wouldn't go so far as to say that
each postcode *has* a name.

It would cause confusion for an address in Leadenhal Street EC3 to give
also the associated name for EC3 which is Fenchurch Street. Is the E16
area still known as Victoria Docks, which is its associated name?

According to mail I receive from certain parties, yes I live in Victoria
Docks!
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)