Bank Of Scotland Botched Disguised Mail

That's probably because you only ever used the 5 digit zip codes, which are a lot less accurate than the post codes in the UK, the 9 digit equivalent ones are quite prone to transposing numbers.

Jim.

I've always thought that the Post Office ought to be able to insist on sensible addresses, more on the American system: 123 Whatever St #456, Sometown, etc (#456 = optional flat/apartment number/suite number). No named houses or office blocks, no names of industrial estates or districts, just keep it simple. If people's snobbishness about their addresses cost them the facility of having mail delivered, they'd soon see sense.

Given the smaller size of the UK, perhaps a 6-digit zip code might have done the trick, as far as accuracy goes. But we'll probably never know.

There is a rhyme and reason to it. Try this:

Alphanumeric postcodes are obviously easier to remember though.

Zip codes cover a hell of a lot bigger area than our postcodes too.

McKev

: What I should have said is that the "Court" name is the street : address, and each flat numbered consecutively from the ground up. eg. : "Flat 3/R Greatview Court, Shuggie Street" becomes "32 Greatview : Court".

In Glasgow, each flat in a close has a different street number. Much simpler.

Ian

Do you think the supermarkets should insist on what times we're allowed to visit the store so they can smooth out the visits throughout the week - after all of if people don't get any groceries they'd soon see sense.

the post offices customers are the people who send mail, they want the mail delivered, the majority of mail people recieve they really couldn't care less about getting.

Jim.

As I understand it, the Post Office exists for our benefit, not the other way round.

-- Richard

They may be, but someone has to manage whatever system of street naming/numbering we have. That function is currently carried out by the local authority, but it could just as well be done by the Post Office.

Chris

No. But how is that relevant?

True. But what about the rest of it?

True. But sensible addresses are to everybody's benefit, whereas the sort of addresses we're talking about actually don't work very effectively - witness the existence of this thread and the problem that prompted it.

No, no-one has to manage it at all. If we choose to manage it to make some things more convenient, that's up to us, but it's a purely pragmatic decision. Maybe we care more about being able to name our houses than minimising the cost of efficient postal delivery.

-- Richard

Not true when I lived there.

John

: Ian Johnston wrote: : > On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 20:20:41 UTC, "Ian Smith" : > wrote: : > : > : What I should have said is that the "Court" name is the street : > : address, and each flat numbered consecutively from the ground up. eg. : > : "Flat 3/R Greatview Court, Shuggie Street" becomes "32 Greatview : > : Court". : > : > In Glasgow, each flat in a close has a different street number. Much : > simpler. : : Not true when I lived there.

Whereabouts, as a matter of interest? It certainly seemed to be the case in all my south side childhood haunts.

Ian, standing ready to be corrected

: In article , : Mike Barnes wrote: : : >I've always thought that the Post Office ought to be able to insist on : >sensible addresses : : As I understand it, the Post Office exists for our benefit, not the : other way round.

Not while it's state owned.

Ian

New flats certainly do, as in anything from about the 1950s onwards, but the old tenements don't.

: Ian Johnston wrote: : : > In Glasgow, each flat in a close has a different street number. Much : > simpler. : : New flats certainly do, as in anything from about the 1950s onwards, but the : old tenements don't.

They do in Old Castle Road, Cathcart, where my Great Grandfather lived at number 95.

Ian

douglas wrote in ed.general about: Bank Of Scotland Botched Disguised Mail

If I could find out who produced this canonical regularised address database that every organisation seems to use, I can assure you that they would not be a very happy person when I'd finished with them (just call me Goldfinger: "No, Mr Database-writer, I expect you to die.").

It *is* a good idea to have a regularised address format, but the point is, we don't have regularised addresses, therefore such a scheme is, sadly, doomed to failure.

Rather than stripping out 'superfluous' fields which *aren't*, the database really ought to have had a number of additional mandatory fields with optional content:

• house name

• NUMBER

• substreet [for the cases such as the above and, in particular, Edinburgh's habit of giving different parts of longer streets subsiduary names]

• (flat number)

• STREET

• locality [also covering the 'smallvillage, near TOWN' cases]

• TOWN

• region [covering islands or whatever passes for a 'county' name, where necessary]

• POSTCODE

etc..

So, where somebody has an address that does fit with the regularised form, you could just get away with:

NUMBER, STREET TOWN POSTCODE

But for the rest of us (and addresses other than the above aren't exactly uncommon), the additional fields could be slotted in as needed.

It wouldn't be hard, ..would it?

Ian Johnston wrote in ed.general about: Re: Bank Of Scotland Botched Disguised Mail

That's not a universal rule, though..

I once lived in a 1980s flat at the following address: Flat 9, 25 Somestreet, Glasgow.

(and it wasn't 25/9, although if there were logic/uniformity in these things, perhaps it really should have been [1])

Having a different street-address number for each flat is a stupid idea, though. What if the block of flats is demolished and either a single dwelling, or a differently-sized block of flats is built in the same place? You either end up with a gap in street numbering, or worse, not enough street-numbers to number the entire block, and what are you supposed to do then?!

[1] This, of course, was in a more innocent time, before anal-retentive web forms, so getting various organisations to accept my address details without complaint was therefore Somebody Else's Problem, not mine. Perhaps the solution would just be to switch off the web...