In message , at 23:09:13 on Tue, 10 Sep
2019, Basil Jet remarked:

The Milestone Hotel in Kensington has a "1.5 Miles to London" milestone
outside it. This seems to be the distance to Hyde Park Corner.

That's in the mould of the early AA distances - to a gateway on the edge
of London.

It is definitely *not* the distance to CHX, St Pauls or Westminster.

The Sainsburys in North Finchley has a milestone with "8 miles to
London" outside it. This seems to be the distance to either CHX or St
Pauls,

Holborn Bar, perhaps.

but probably not Westminster

Westminster (or Big Ben) is a red herring.

or Hyde Park Corner.

Hang on, the answers are here. There are lots of different origins.
http://www.metadyne.co.uk/n-milestones.html

Lots of different routes, doing their own thing. But the only distance
which had to be standardised (cf "Railway time") was for postage.
--
Roland Perry

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 10/09/2019 20:21, Recliner wrote:
Sammi Gray-Jones wrote:

And as you rightly point out it's now 0-62.5mph, still in miles per
hour. Not 0-100 kph.


It's quoted that way for the benefit of ignorant Brits, but what they
actually measure is 0-100 km/h. Many cars are limited to 250 km/h,
described as '155 mph' for ignorant Brits.

Excuse me, but I take exception to that. I'm British (not "a Brit"
please, I'm not American either) and I use imperial measurements. I do
so because I was brought up with them and I'm used to them. I fail to
see why I should be forced to use the metric system. Why can't both be
used..? I still struggle to understand the weather forecasts when
temperatures are only quoted in degrees C.

The country went metric decades ago.

but not when it came to measuring roads

tim

On 11/09/2019 12:13, tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 10/09/2019 20:21, Recliner wrote:
Sammi Gray-Jones wrote:

And as you rightly point out it's now 0-62.5mph, still in miles per
hour. Not 0-100 kph.


It's quoted that way for the benefit of ignorant Brits, but what they
actually measure is 0-100 km/h. Many cars are limited to 250 km/h,
described as '155 mph' for ignorant Brits.

Excuse me, but I take exception to that. I'm British (not "a Brit"
please, I'm not American either) and I use imperial measurements. I do
so because I was brought up with them and I'm used to them. I fail to
see why I should be forced to use the metric system. Why can't both be
used..? I still struggle to understand the weather forecasts when
temperatures are only quoted in degrees C.

The country went metric decades ago.

but not when it came to measuring roads


A case of pragmatism winning out, very little gain for a lot of expense.



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 10/09/2019 23:51, Recliner wrote:

Yes, many of us were brought up with quaint imperial measures, but it's
easy to adapt. I still remember my height in ft and inches, as that's what
we used when it was last measured (when I was a teenager), but I know my
weight in kg.

It may be easy to adapt for you, but please do not be so arrogant as to
assume it is the same for everyone. I simply cannot do it, and quite
honestly I do not see why I should. Why can't both systems be used..?



--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

On 10/09/2019 23:51, Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 10/09/2019 20:21, Recliner wrote:
Sammi Gray-Jones wrote:

And as you rightly point out it's now 0-62.5mph, still in miles per
hour. Not 0-100 kph.


It's quoted that way for the benefit of ignorant Brits, but what they
actually measure is 0-100 km/h. Many cars are limited to 250 km/h,
described as '155 mph' for ignorant Brits.

Excuse me, but I take exception to that. I'm British (not "a Brit"
please, I'm not American either) and I use imperial measurements. I do
so because I was brought up with them and I'm used to them. I fail to
see why I should be forced to use the metric system. Why can't both be
used..? I still struggle to understand the weather forecasts when
temperatures are only quoted in degrees C.

The country went metric decades ago. Temperatures, whether body or
atmospheric, need only be quoted in ºC. Water boils at 100º, not 212º, and
freezes at zero, not -32º. It's hot, not cold, when the temperature hits
30º. We use metric tonnes, not short or long tons. Our car engine sizes are
quoted in litres, not cubic inches. Races are run over hundred(s) of
metres, not yards.

Yes, many of us were brought up with quaint imperial measures, but it's
easy to adapt. I still remember my height in ft and inches, as that's what
we used when it was last measured (when I was a teenager), but I know my
weight in kg.

Our neighbours in Ireland had no trouble adapting, so why do some Brit[on]s
(if you insist) still think we're in the 1970?

As I said before I spent three years in Germany using the metric
measurements, which I had to convert in my head into miles so that I
could understand them. I couldn't wait to get back to the UK and use
miles again. As to my weight I could probably tell you what it is in kg,
but to me that's a meaningless number and I need to change into stones
and pounds. When cooking I use imperial measurements throughout. As to
the fact that the Irish have found it easy to adapt to metrication, have
you *asked* them all.? I'm sure that there are some like me who have to
convert metric to imperial before they understand it.

Recliner wrote:

I know my weight in kg.

But quick, what about stone?

wRoland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:41:10 on Tue, 10
Sep 2019, Marland remarked:
It was London Transport which recalculated its route measurements to
Kilometres back in 1972 .
Ironically they chose Ongar as the 0 datum

I think they chose Ongar because it was the furthest east.

which means their measurements start on a line that was closed and is
now no longer theirs

It's not the only disappeared datum. Road miles from London were
measured from the Post Office near St Pauls (the tube station used to be
called "Post Office") because postage was originally calculated by the
mile.

Hmm, I always thought it was where the original Charing Cross was
located.

I could see the Post Office might have used its own datum for
postage from its own main London premises for its own purposes but
the Post Office premises you mention were not constructed until the
early 19th Century and many milestones would have been put in place
before that by the Turnpike Trusts who were required to do so.

The date of the building on that site today isn't relevant. Some say the
datum is actually a little further north, at the site now occupied by
Mount Pleasant sorting office; but that doesn't change the basic
principle.

Perhaps someone else can adjudicate.

The wording on this plaque seems pretty definitive

https://ads9rca.wordpress.com/2016/1...tarting-point/

Unfortunately, the plaque doesn't say 'Measured by... whom".

And the elephant in the room is that Charing Cross was the *penultimate*
stop on the trip in question ("a little village near Westminster" in
longer versions of the story), the final destination being Westminster.

If there had been a "final" cross at Westminster (and many people think
Big Ben is where distances are measured from) then it would be far more
compelling.

Quite a few people say that the Charing Cross (or Trafalgar Square in
fact) was chosen as a datum by the AA, as more central of a place in
London bearing in mind how it had developed by the time they started
publishing their own maps.

So the real answer is that nobody seems to know which one it should be and
one claim is no better or worse than the other.

You are making the assumption that one or other is "correct" and the
other must therefore be "wrong".

Where did I say that one or the other is is correct and the other wrong ?

All I asked for was an answer and it appears that there are several all
which of which could be correct for one purpose but not another.

Its almost as if you are wanting me to argue that your suggestion was wrong
so you you can start one of your long winded arguments to bolster your
ego even though I haven’t actually disagreed with you, just not accepted
that the one you put forward has any more merit to be the main one than any
other.

GH

tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 10/09/2019 20:21, Recliner wrote:
Sammi Gray-Jones wrote:

And as you rightly point out it's now 0-62.5mph, still in miles per
hour. Not 0-100 kph.


It's quoted that way for the benefit of ignorant Brits, but what they
actually measure is 0-100 km/h. Many cars are limited to 250 km/h,
described as '155 mph' for ignorant Brits.

Excuse me, but I take exception to that. I'm British (not "a Brit"
please, I'm not American either) and I use imperial measurements. I do
so because I was brought up with them and I'm used to them. I fail to
see why I should be forced to use the metric system. Why can't both be
used..? I still struggle to understand the weather forecasts when
temperatures are only quoted in degrees C.

The country went metric decades ago.

but not when it came to measuring roads

Of course they're metric. Try finding any imperial measurements in this
typical document:

http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/mchw/vol1/pdfs/MCHW%20700.pdf

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/09/2019 12:13, tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 10/09/2019 20:21, Recliner wrote:
Sammi Gray-Jones wrote:

And as you rightly point out it's now 0-62.5mph, still in miles per
hour. Not 0-100 kph.


It's quoted that way for the benefit of ignorant Brits, but what they
actually measure is 0-100 km/h. Many cars are limited to 250 km/h,
described as '155 mph' for ignorant Brits.

Excuse me, but I take exception to that. I'm British (not "a Brit"
please, I'm not American either) and I use imperial measurements. I do
so because I was brought up with them and I'm used to them. I fail to
see why I should be forced to use the metric system. Why can't both be
used..? I still struggle to understand the weather forecasts when
temperatures are only quoted in degrees C.

The country went metric decades ago.

but not when it came to measuring roads


A case of pragmatism winning out, very little gain for a lot of expense.

All the road standards are metric, but it's apparently too expensive to
replace all the road signs. But it didn't stop Australia, Canada, India,
Ireland, South Africa, etc doing so.

MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 10/09/2019 23:51, Recliner wrote:

Yes, many of us were brought up with quaint imperial measures, but it's
easy to adapt. I still remember my height in ft and inches, as that's what
we used when it was last measured (when I was a teenager), but I know my
weight in kg.

It may be easy to adapt for you, but please do not be so arrogant as to
assume it is the same for everyone. I simply cannot do it, and quite
honestly I do not see why I should. Why can't both systems be used..?

Have you seen or used a medical thermometer any time recently?

You can't live in the last century forever.