Evening all,

Not related to transport, but a topic which flares up here now and then:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10825499

I was particularly pleased to see the 'Romford is/is not in Essex'
argument being brought up immediately in the comments. Now, could someone
get on there and tell them about Metropolitan Kent?

tom

--
made up languages, delusions, skin diseases and unaided human flight

Tom Anderson wrote on 31 July 2010 19:07:34 ...
Evening all,

Not related to transport, but a topic which flares up here now and then:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10825499

Oh, good. Perhaps it will finally persuade websites not to insist on a
county, which I find quite irritating when I've already given London as
the town/city name.

I was particularly pleased to see the 'Romford is/is not in Essex'
argument being brought up immediately in the comments. Now, could someone
get on there and tell them about Metropolitan Kent?

The Met doesn't have any stations in Kent.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

In message . li, at
19:07:34 on Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Tom Anderson
remarked:
I was particularly pleased to see the 'Romford is/is not in Essex'
argument being brought up immediately in the comments.

Having been brought up in the vicinity, I'd say that all of those were
in Essex, as is [ObLRT:] Upminster and Epping.

This change will finally sort out a couple of villages in the south
Chilterns which are physically in Bucks, but with a Henley (Oxon)
address, and a Reading (Berks) Postcode!
--
Roland Perry

On 1 Aug, 09:35, Roland Perry wrote:
In message . li, at
19:07:34 on Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Tom Anderson
remarked:

I was particularly pleased to see the 'Romford is/is not in Essex'
argument being brought up immediately in the comments.

Having been brought up in the vicinity, I'd say that all of those were
in Essex, as is [ObLRT:] Upminster and Epping.

This change will finally sort out a couple of villages in the south
Chilterns which are physically in Bucks, but with a Henley (Oxon)
address, and a Reading (Berks) Postcode!
--
Roland Perry

"Physically"? All these boundaries are administrative for one purpose
or another. (Although for some reason people seem to think that past
administrative boundaries are "real" and current ones are not.)

The objections to the proposed change seem to come from people who
haven't cottoned on that their postal address is not meant to be a
description of where they live, but is a structured entry in a record
of delivery points. It can have whatever fields in it the owner of
the record wants to store.

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:01:37 +0100, "Richard J."
wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote on 31 July 2010 19:07:34 ...
Evening all,

Not related to transport, but a topic which flares up here now and then:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10825499

Oh, good. Perhaps it will finally persuade websites not to insist on a
county, which I find quite irritating when I've already given London as
the town/city name.


One possible problem is that some debit/credit card issuers still
insist on a county as part of their security requirements for online
payments. Some, not all.

In message
, at
02:49:26 on Sun, 1 Aug 2010, MIG remarked:

I was particularly pleased to see the 'Romford is/is not in Essex'
argument being brought up immediately in the comments.

Having been brought up in the vicinity, I'd say that all of those were
in Essex, as is [ObLRT:] Upminster and Epping.

This change will finally sort out a couple of villages in the south
Chilterns which are physically in Bucks, but with a Henley (Oxon)
address, and a Reading (Berks) Postcode!

"Physically"?

As in... the county boundary on the map.

All these boundaries are administrative for one purpose
or another. (Although for some reason people seem to think that past
administrative boundaries are "real" and current ones are not.)

I'm not aware that the Bucks/Oxon border has changed very recently, in
that vicinity (other bits of Oxon border have changed in my lifetime).

The objections to the proposed change seem to come from people who
haven't cottoned on that their postal address is not meant to be a
description of where they live,

"Where you live" does have an effect on services provided by the
relevant councils, and hence on one's lifestyle. Planning and Education,
for example, can vary quite dramatically across a country border.

but is a structured entry in a record of delivery points. It can have
whatever fields in it the owner of the record wants to store.

Addresses, however, come with lots of baggage. I once lived in a village
several miles inside south Cambridgeshire. But the postcode was
associated with Royston "Herts". As a result many providers of services
would insist it was their (eg) Stevenage branch which I should be
talking to, not the one much nearer (demographically as well as
physically) in Cambridge.

The worst was online estate agents, who in effect created a no-mans land
of houses that would not show up in a search when people expected
results from the southern fringe of Cambridge, but were also way outside
the area that anyone looking for a house in Stevenage would be
interested in.
--
Roland Perry

On 2010-08-01 12:57:35 +0100, Roland Perry said:

In message
, at
02:49:26 on Sun, 1 Aug 2010, MIG remarked:

I was particularly pleased to see the 'Romford is/is not in Essex'
argument being brought up immediately in the comments.

Having been brought up in the vicinity, I'd say that all of those were
in Essex, as is [ObLRT:] Upminster and Epping.

This change will finally sort out a couple of villages in the south
Chilterns which are physically in Bucks, but with a Henley (Oxon)
address, and a Reading (Berks) Postcode!

"Physically"?

As in... the county boundary on the map.

All these boundaries are administrative for one purpose
or another. (Although for some reason people seem to think that past
administrative boundaries are "real" and current ones are not.)

I'm not aware that the Bucks/Oxon border has changed very recently, in
that vicinity (other bits of Oxon border have changed in my lifetime).

The objections to the proposed change seem to come from people who
haven't cottoned on that their postal address is not meant to be a
description of where they live,

"Where you live" does have an effect on services provided by the
relevant councils, and hence on one's lifestyle. Planning and
Education, for example, can vary quite dramatically across a country
border.

but is a structured entry in a record of delivery points. It can have
whatever fields in it the owner of the record wants to store.

Addresses, however, come with lots of baggage. I once lived in a
village several miles inside south Cambridgeshire. But the postcode was
associated with Royston "Herts". As a result many providers of services
would insist it was their (eg) Stevenage branch which I should be
talking to, not the one much nearer (demographically as well as
physically) in Cambridge.

The worst was online estate agents, who in effect created a no-mans
land of houses that would not show up in a search when people expected
results from the southern fringe of Cambridge, but were also way
outside the area that anyone looking for a house in Stevenage would be
interested in.

The whole thing's a mess, due as others have hinted to people taking
the Royal Mail's version of the postal address as being
incontrovertible evidence as to the administrative area. This has a
whole raft of unintended consequences.

There was a very vigorous campaign in the local press a while back from
the village of Eastwick, just north of Harlow. They wanted their
address changed from Harlow, Essex to a Herts one as they seemed to
think that they were too good for a Harlow address. The Royal Mail
would have none of it.

I live in the converse: an Essex village with a Herts. address. I'm
happy with that, but the residents of East Herts. should be concerned
that their council tax pays for me to get East herts propoganda sheets
shoved through my door from time to time, although that may be postcode
rather than postal address related.

But the big problem is organisations that arrange services
geographically, as others have said. I've lost count of the times I've
had to explain "Yes, my address DOES say Bishop's Stortford, Herts. But
no, I live in Essex". It's even been a problem with the police,
although I hope modern technology has improved matters in that
particular case.

The real problem is the clueless nature of some organisations and their
systems. Will things really get better once we get in the habit of not
adding the county to addresses? I suspect they'll use postcodes
instead. With sufficient granularity that could be fine. OTOH it could
easily be a huge mess.

In article ,
(Trolleybus) wrote:

The whole thing's a mess, due as others have hinted to people
taking the Royal Mail's version of the postal address as being
incontrovertible evidence as to the administrative area. This has a
whole raft of unintended consequences.

There was a very vigorous campaign in the local press a while back
from the village of Eastwick, just north of Harlow. They wanted
their address changed from Harlow, Essex to a Herts one as they
seemed to think that they were too good for a Harlow address. The
Royal Mail would have none of it.

I live in the converse: an Essex village with a Herts. address. I'm
happy with that, but the residents of East Herts. should be
concerned that their council tax pays for me to get East herts
propoganda sheets shoved through my door from time to time,
although that may be postcode rather than postal address related.

But the big problem is organisations that arrange services
geographically, as others have said. I've lost count of the times
I've had to explain "Yes, my address DOES say Bishop's Stortford,
Herts. But no, I live in Essex". It's even been a problem with the
police, although I hope modern technology has improved matters in
that particular case.

The real problem is the clueless nature of some organisations and
their systems. Will things really get better once we get in the
habit of not adding the county to addresses? I suspect they'll use
postcodes instead. With sufficient granularity that could be fine.
OTOH it could easily be a huge mess.

He, he. At least you don't live in Melbourn, Royston, Herts (actually in
Cambridgeshire as Roland says) and have your mail sent via Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 13:44:05 on Sun,
1 Aug 2010, Trolleybus remarked:
The real problem is the clueless nature of some organisations and their
systems. Will things really get better once we get in the habit of not
adding the county to addresses? I suspect they'll use postcodes
instead. With sufficient granularity that could be fine. OTOH it could
easily be a huge mess.

It wouldn't have helped me (with an SG8 postcode several miles inside
Cambridgeshire) unless they are prepared to go down to at least that
level of granularity. Which would also require some central 'body of
knowledge' that said "SG8 is a village on the southern fringe of
Cambridge, not anywhere near, or remotely associated with, Stevenage".

The next village north (Foxton), also famous for being the
faux-destination of stopping trains from Kings Cross to Cambridge, did
mount a campaign and was eventually re-designated CB22 about ten years
ago.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

The next village north (Foxton), also famous for being the
faux-destination of stopping trains from Kings Cross to Cambridge,
did mount a campaign and was eventually re-designated CB22 about
ten years ago.

Or, to be more precise, it was redesignated CB2 but, being outside the
City, that was changed to CB22 more recently.

--
Colin Rosenstiel