http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...-a3162136.html

Is this a new sign? I know there's been work going on there, but why did
it need a new sign?

On 2016-01-21 20:59:28 +0000, Basil Jet said:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...-a3162136.html


Is this a new sign? I know there's been work going on there, but why
did it need a new sign?

This one at Highbury always amuses me:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/49435266@N05/23901196183/

E.

On 21/01/2016 20:59, Basil Jet wrote:


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...-a3162136.html

Is this a new sign? I know there's been work going on there, but why did
it need a new sign?

Guessing... because the old one was poxy and covered with patches?

On 2016\01\22 17:01, Mizter T wrote:

On 21/01/2016 20:59, Basil Jet wrote:


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...-a3162136.html


Is this a new sign? I know there's been work going on there, but why did
it need a new sign?

Guessing... because the old one was poxy and covered with patches?

A few years before Crossrail opens is not the time to change them.
Unless it's got Crossrail on it... has it?

Another mistake, but not a spelling one. A recent-ish sign on the end of the main station building at Coulsdon South lists various bus services including the 405 to Horley, Merstham and Redhill. I assume they mean Hooley, the 405 doesn't go anywhere near Horley.

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 23:33:41 UTC, eastender wrote:
On 2016-01-21 20:59:28 +0000, Basil Jet said:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...-a3162136.html


Is this a new sign? I know there's been work going on there, but why
did it need a new sign?

This one at Highbury always amuses me:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/49435266@N05/23901196183/

I'm normally a crack-shot at spelling mistakes but I can't see that one.

On 2016\01\23 13:54, Offramp wrote:
On Thursday, 21 January 2016 23:33:41 UTC, eastender wrote:
On 2016-01-21 20:59:28 +0000, Basil Jet said:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...-a3162136.html


Is this a new sign? I know there's been work going on there, but why
did it need a new sign?

This one at Highbury always amuses me:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/49435266@N05/23901196183/

I'm normally a crack-shot at spelling mistakes but I can't see that one.


Although "alternate" is used in America as an, er, alternative to
alternative, here in Britain "alternate route" implies that you should
use one route the first, third and fifth times and use the other the
second, fourth and sixth times.

On Saturday, 23 January 2016 14:09:49 UTC, Basil Jet wrote:

Although "alternate" is used in America as an, er, alternative to
alternative, here in Britain "alternate route" implies that you should
use one route the first, third and fifth times and use the other the
second, fourth and sixth times.

Yes, very well spotted. You are right.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 20:02:10 +0000, "Richard J."
wrote:

My Collins dictionary includes the use of 'alternate' to mean
'alternative' as one of the ten meanings of 'alternate', and it doesn't
mark it as only applying to American English. It was published in 1984.
I think you've missed the boat on this one.

Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary has the alternative meaning
listed as "especially North American English".

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...rner/alternate

--
jhk

"Offramp" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 23 January 2016 14:09:49 UTC, Basil Jet wrote:

Although "alternate" is used in America as an, er, alternative to
alternative, here in Britain "alternate route" implies that you should
use one route the first, third and fifth times and use the other the
second, fourth and sixth times.

Yes, very well spotted. You are right.

I got it

but only because I couldn't see anything else wrong and I thought it a bit
picky