[Ron Lowe]

I was just looking at mains water pressures recently.
I've seen it vary from 3 to 7 bar in our area.
Seems typical enough.

That got me wondering.
How do they regulate the pressure?

If we lived in flat-land, then they could regulate at the reservoir or
pumping station. But we don't live in flat-land.

The hydrostatic head of 10m head of water is roughly 1 bar, so I can't see
how one regulator could satisfy a hilly area without the top of the hill and
bottom of the hill having too wide a pressure difference. 40m of elevation
would be the difference between 3 bar at the top of the hill and 7 bar at
the bottom. Anything more than 40m elevation difference would require
seperate regulation, to my mind.

Do they have regulators dotted up and down the streets?

Where are they? Burried underground?

--
Ron

[The Natural Philosopher]

Ron Lowe wrote:
I was just looking at mains water pressures recently.
I've seen it vary from 3 to 7 bar in our area.
Seems typical enough.

That got me wondering.
How do they regulate the pressure?

If we lived in flat-land, then they could regulate at the reservoir or
pumping station. But we don't live in flat-land.

The hydrostatic head of 10m head of water is roughly 1 bar, so I can't see
how one regulator could satisfy a hilly area without the top of the hill and
bottom of the hill having too wide a pressure difference. 40m of elevation
would be the difference between 3 bar at the top of the hill and 7 bar at
the bottom. Anything more than 40m elevation difference would require
seperate regulation, to my mind.

Do they have regulators dotted up and down the streets?

Where are they? Burried underground?



I always assumed they didn't.

That is the 5 bar we see here is the average height of the water tower
above my kitchen tap...its about 10 meters high and on land 40 meters
higher than we are..

[Gordon Henderson]

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Ron Lowe wrote:
I was just looking at mains water pressures recently.
I've seen it vary from 3 to 7 bar in our area.
Seems typical enough.

That got me wondering.
How do they regulate the pressure?

Do they have regulators dotted up and down the streets?

Where are they? Burried underground?

I always assumed they didn't.

That is the 5 bar we see here is the average height of the water tower
above my kitchen tap...its about 10 meters high and on land 40 meters
higher than we are..

Our water pressure is ~8bar. Comes from way up the hill behind us. A
leak here is quite "interesting"!!!

Gordon

[Roger]

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

Do they have regulators dotted up and down the streets?

Where are they? Burried underground?



I always assumed they didn't.

That is the 5 bar we see here is the average height of the water tower
above my kitchen tap...its about 10 meters high and on land 40 meters
higher than we are..

But you live in flatland where 100 feet is a big hill. :-) The highest
point in Suffolk is only 419 feet AMSL.

Here in Yorkshire 500 feet is not an uncommon difference in height
between the top and bottom of an urban road. I live about halfway up
such a hill. I don't know the actual pressure (at a guess above 3 bar)
but it is quite high and before they replaced the water main and reduced
the pressure considerably it was horrendeously high. They must have some
means of regulating pressure.

--
Roger Chapman

[The Natural Philosopher]

Roger wrote:
The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

Do they have regulators dotted up and down the streets?

Where are they? Burried underground?



I always assumed they didn't.

That is the 5 bar we see here is the average height of the water tower
above my kitchen tap...its about 10 meters high and on land 40 meters
higher than we are..

But you live in flatland where 100 feet is a big hill. :-) The highest
point in Suffolk is only 419 feet AMSL.

Here in Yorkshire 500 feet is not an uncommon difference in height
between the top and bottom of an urban road. I live about halfway up
such a hill. I don't know the actual pressure (at a guess above 3 bar)
but it is quite high and before they replaced the water main and reduced
the pressure considerably it was horrendeously high. They must have some
means of regulating pressure.

Hedaer tanks and ball valves halfway up the hill ?

:-) :-)

[Roger]

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

Hedaer tanks and ball valves halfway up the hill ?

:-) :-)

I really don't know how they do it but one way would be to have in-line
pressure reducers at regular heights. If 3 - 7 bar was an acceptable
range then they would be needed every 120 feet of altitude change.

--
Roger Chapman

[Mike Barnes]

In uk.d-i-y, Roger wrote:
Here in Yorkshire 500 feet is not an uncommon difference in height
between the top and bottom of an urban road.

Are you sure you're not exaggerating?

--
Mike Barnes

[[email protected]]

Mike Barnes wrote:
In uk.d-i-y, Roger wrote:
Here in Yorkshire 500 feet is not an uncommon difference in height
between the top and bottom of an urban road.

Are you sure you're not exaggerating?

He isn't. .

Where I lived there was a small resevoir at 705'. The bottom of the
valley, down the road, was 246'. Whether it's all supplied from the
same resevoir at the top of the hill is another matter.

MBQ

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:44:27 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

|In uk.d-i-y, Roger wrote:
|Here in Yorkshire 500 feet is not an uncommon difference in height
|between the top and bottom of an urban road.
|
|Are you sure you're not exaggerating?

Manchester Rd, Bradford is about 500ft from Bradford to Odsal.
That is the first one I thought of. There are several urban roads which
change names several times during the climb.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

[Tony Williams]

In article ,
Roger wrote:

I really don't know how they do it but one way would be to have
in-line pressure reducers at regular heights. If 3 - 7 bar was an
acceptable range then they would be needed every 120 feet of
altitude change.

This village has a reservoir at the top of the hill.
The main piping works in both direction though, down
during the day, and water pumped up to the reservoir
overnight. There used to be massive pressure surges
overnight, ballcocks lifting, and a short life for
all valves. That is, until the water authority also
began to regularly blow their own ancient 4" asbestos
mains. Rather than replace the mains they first of
all started to tanker water to the reservoir, then
installed a separate feed pipe from the other
direction.

--
Tony Williams.

[Mike Barnes]

In uk.d-i-y, wrote:

Mike Barnes wrote:
In uk.d-i-y, Roger wrote:
Here in Yorkshire 500 feet is not an uncommon difference in height
between the top and bottom of an urban road.

Are you sure you're not exaggerating?

He isn't. .

Where I lived there was a small resevoir at 705'. The bottom of the
valley, down the road, was 246'. Whether it's all supplied from the
same resevoir at the top of the hill is another matter.

And that's an urban road, is it? Not disagreeing, just surprised. I
won't stoop to pointing out that it's less than 500 feet. :-)

In any event, the number of such roads as a proportion of urban roads
must be very small. So I'd say "uncommon" was actually pretty accurate.

--
Mike Barnes

[[email protected]]

Mike Barnes wrote:
In uk.d-i-y, wrote:

Mike Barnes wrote:
In uk.d-i-y, Roger wrote:
Here in Yorkshire 500 feet is not an uncommon difference in height
between the top and bottom of an urban road.

Are you sure you're not exaggerating?

He isn't. .

Where I lived there was a small resevoir at 705'. The bottom of the
valley, down the road, was 246'. Whether it's all supplied from the
same resevoir at the top of the hill is another matter.

And that's an urban road, is it? Not disagreeing, just surprised. I
won't stoop to pointing out that it's less than 500 feet. :-)

Weeell, it depends how you define urban. There's more than one way down
to the valley bottom, most are built up and it's less than two miles
form the centre of Huddersfield.

In any event, the number of such roads as a proportion of urban roads
must be very small. So I'd say "uncommon" was actually pretty accurate.

Just visit any West Yorkshire mill town where the major population
centres were originally up the hill but were overtaken by valley bottom
development around the new fangled water mills. Now they're largely one
urban sprawl, although the residents may claim otherwise ;-). Almost
*all* of the urban road go uphillI. I would say "not uncommon" was an
accurate description in this context.

MBQ

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:14:32 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

|In uk.d-i-y, wrote:
|
|Mike Barnes wrote:
| In uk.d-i-y, Roger wrote:
| Here in Yorkshire 500 feet is not an uncommon difference in height
| between the top and bottom of an urban road.
|
| Are you sure you're not exaggerating?
|
|He isn't. .
|
|Where I lived there was a small resevoir at 705'. The bottom of the
|valley, down the road, was 246'. Whether it's all supplied from the
|same resevoir at the top of the hill is another matter.
|
|And that's an urban road, is it? Not disagreeing, just surprised. I
|won't stoop to pointing out that it's less than 500 feet. :-)
|
|In any event, the number of such roads as a proportion of urban roads
|must be very small. So I'd say "uncommon" was actually pretty accurate.

In the West Riding of Yorkshire quite common. maybe Darn Sarf they are
uncommon. Bradford to Queensbury A647 urban all the way. Well over 500ft
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

[Roger]

The message
from Mike Barnes contains these words:

Here in Yorkshire 500 feet is not an uncommon difference in height
between the top and bottom of an urban road.

Are you sure you're not exaggerating?

Not for this area of Yorkshire. 400 feet between valley bottom and the
edge of urban habitation might be more typical but 500 feet was quoted
as it is the height difference on my hillside. Greater height
differences can be found. Queensbury, a suburb of Bradford, and little
more than 4 miles from the city centre is a good 800 feet higher.

--
Roger Chapman

[Roger]

The message
from Mike Barnes contains these words:

In any event, the number of such roads as a proportion of urban roads
must be very small. So I'd say "uncommon" was actually pretty accurate.

That would depend on whether you are thinking of road names or road
lengths but for the avoidance of doubt as to what I actually ment just
substitute 'area' for 'road' in my original statement.

--
Roger Chapman

[Mike Barnes]

In uk.d-i-y, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:14:32 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

|In uk.d-i-y, wrote:
|
|Mike Barnes wrote:
| In uk.d-i-y, Roger wrote:
| Here in Yorkshire 500 feet is not an uncommon difference in height
| between the top and bottom of an urban road.
|
| Are you sure you're not exaggerating?
|
|He isn't. .
|
|Where I lived there was a small resevoir at 705'. The bottom of the
|valley, down the road, was 246'. Whether it's all supplied from the
|same resevoir at the top of the hill is another matter.
|
|And that's an urban road, is it? Not disagreeing, just surprised. I
|won't stoop to pointing out that it's less than 500 feet. :-)
|
|In any event, the number of such roads as a proportion of urban roads
|must be very small. So I'd say "uncommon" was actually pretty accurate.

In the West Riding of Yorkshire quite common. maybe Darn Sarf they are
uncommon. Bradford to Queensbury A647 urban all the way. Well over 500ft

At the risk of flogging a dead horse: that looks to me like several
roads (Chester Street then Morley Street then Easby Road then Dirkhill
Road then turn right onto All Saints Road then turn left into Great
Horton Road then Highgate Road then Scarlett Heights then Sand Beds then
High Street (E&OE)). And some of them, especially at the upper end,
border far too many fields to fit with my idea of "urban" roads.

Stepping back a bit, I'd never claim there weren't any. But it still
seems to me that they're far from commonplace, even in Yorkshire, and
people seem to have to stretch definitions in order to identify one.

--
Mike Barnes

[Mike Barnes]

In uk.d-i-y, Roger wrote:
The message
from Mike Barnes contains these words:

Here in Yorkshire 500 feet is not an uncommon difference in height
between the top and bottom of an urban road.

Are you sure you're not exaggerating?

Not for this area of Yorkshire. 400 feet between valley bottom and the
edge of urban habitation might be more typical but 500 feet was quoted
as it is the height difference on my hillside. Greater height
differences can be found. Queensbury, a suburb of Bradford, and little
more than 4 miles from the city centre is a good 800 feet higher.

More exaggeration, I suspect. Is it something in the Yorkshire air? The
AA route planner makes the distance 4.9 miles and Google Earth gives the
height difference as 711 feet.

--
Mike Barnes

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:05:02 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

|In uk.d-i-y, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:14:32 +0100, Mike Barnes
|wrote:
|
||In uk.d-i-y, wrote:
||
||Mike Barnes wrote:
|| In uk.d-i-y, Roger wrote:
|| Here in Yorkshire 500 feet is not an uncommon difference in height
|| between the top and bottom of an urban road.
||
|| Are you sure you're not exaggerating?
||
||He isn't. .
||
||Where I lived there was a small resevoir at 705'. The bottom of the
||valley, down the road, was 246'. Whether it's all supplied from the
||same resevoir at the top of the hill is another matter.
||
||And that's an urban road, is it? Not disagreeing, just surprised. I
||won't stoop to pointing out that it's less than 500 feet. :-)
||
||In any event, the number of such roads as a proportion of urban roads
||must be very small. So I'd say "uncommon" was actually pretty accurate.
|
|In the West Riding of Yorkshire quite common. maybe Darn Sarf they are
|uncommon. Bradford to Queensbury A647 urban all the way. Well over 500ft
|
|At the risk of flogging a dead horse: that looks to me like several
|roads (Chester Street then Morley Street then Easby Road then Dirkhill
|Road then turn right onto All Saints Road then turn left into Great
|Horton Road then Highgate Road then Scarlett Heights then Sand Beds then
|High Street (E&OE)). And some of them, especially at the upper end,
|border far too many fields to fit with my idea of "urban" roads.
|
|Stepping back a bit, I'd never claim there weren't any. But it still
|seems to me that they're far from commonplace, even in Yorkshire, and
|people seem to have to stretch definitions in order to identify one.

Like I said the A647.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

[Roger]

The message
from Mike Barnes contains these words:

Not for this area of Yorkshire. 400 feet between valley bottom and the
edge of urban habitation might be more typical but 500 feet was quoted
as it is the height difference on my hillside. Greater height
differences can be found. Queensbury, a suburb of Bradford, and little
more than 4 miles from the city centre is a good 800 feet higher.

More exaggeration, I suspect. Is it something in the Yorkshire air? The
AA route planner makes the distance 4.9 miles and Google Earth gives the
height difference as 711 feet.

Oh ye of little faith.

FYI I used Fugawi 1:50000, took the grid reference of Queensbury as
SE09962 30999, Bradford City centre as SE16462 32939 and computed the
difference by trig. The respective heights were 1139 feet and 330 feet.
It so happens that I recorded the Queensbury grid reference incorrectly,
must have nudged the cursor between reading the height and reading the
reference, but it doesn't make much difference, 4 and 1/3 miles rather
than 4.2 miles. The Queensbury reference should have been SE10067 30169.

As to height difference the figures above give 809 feet but moving off
the main road in Queensbury it is easy enough to find higher ground.
1200 feet at the upper edge of Queensbury housing and 1227 feet a few
hundred yards further on at the top of the hill in the hamlet of
Mountain. In Bradford City centre within a few hundred yards of City
Hall the ground drops to 312 feet so I could have with almost equal
justification claimed a height difference of 900 feet at under 4.5 miles
distance.

--
Roger Chapman

[Brian Sharrock]

"Dave Fawthrop" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:14:32 +0100, Mike Barnes

wrote:

|In uk.d-i-y, wrote:
|
|Mike Barnes wrote:
| In uk.d-i-y, Roger wrote:
| Here in Yorkshire 500 feet is not an uncommon difference in height
| between the top and bottom of an urban road.
|
| Are you sure you're not exaggerating?
|
|He isn't. .
|
|Where I lived there was a small resevoir at 705'. The bottom of the
|valley, down the road, was 246'. Whether it's all supplied from the
|same resevoir at the top of the hill is another matter.
|
|And that's an urban road, is it? Not disagreeing, just surprised. I
|won't stoop to pointing out that it's less than 500 feet. :-)
|
|In any event, the number of such roads as a proportion of urban roads
|must be very small. So I'd say "uncommon" was actually pretty accurate.

In the West Riding of Yorkshire quite common. maybe Darn Sarf they are
uncommon. Bradford to Queensbury A647 urban all the way. Well over 500ft

background music = ON; play=Dvorac's "New World Symphony"
aka='Hovis' ad'*
Five hundred feet sloping roads ...? Luxury!
We used to dream of roads that were so flat 'as only 'aving a five 'undred
foot slope!
We used to have six 'undred feet to climb, both ways going to and fro' ter
skule!
Folks darn sarf don't know they're born!
background music = OFF

* I know; it's a street in Shaftesbury!

--

Brian

[Mike Barnes]

In uk.d-i-y, Roger wrote:
The message
from Mike Barnes contains these words:

Not for this area of Yorkshire. 400 feet between valley bottom and the
edge of urban habitation might be more typical but 500 feet was quoted
as it is the height difference on my hillside. Greater height
differences can be found. Queensbury, a suburb of Bradford, and little
more than 4 miles from the city centre is a good 800 feet higher.

More exaggeration, I suspect. Is it something in the Yorkshire air? The
AA route planner makes the distance 4.9 miles and Google Earth gives the
height difference as 711 feet.

Oh ye of little faith.

That's me! :-)

FYI I used Fugawi 1:50000, took the grid reference of Queensbury as
SE09962 30999, Bradford City centre as SE16462 32939 and computed the
difference by trig.

Isn't the length of the road(s) the important thing here?

[...]

As to height difference the figures above give 809 feet but moving off
the main road in Queensbury it is easy enough to find higher ground.
1200 feet at the upper edge of Queensbury housing and 1227 feet a few
hundred yards further on at the top of the hill in the hamlet of
Mountain. In Bradford City centre within a few hundred yards of City
Hall the ground drops to 312 feet so I could have with almost equal
justification claimed a height difference of 900 feet at under 4.5 miles
distance.

Isn't the height difference between the ends of the road(s) the
important thing here?

--
Mike Barnes

[Roger]

The message
from Mike Barnes contains these words:

FYI I used Fugawi 1:50000, took the grid reference of Queensbury as
SE09962 30999, Bradford City centre as SE16462 32939 and computed the
difference by trig.

Isn't the length of the road(s) the important thing here?

Why on earth should it be? The distance was given to illustrate the
closeness of Queensbury to the city centre.

[...]

As to height difference the figures above give 809 feet but moving off
the main road in Queensbury it is easy enough to find higher ground.
1200 feet at the upper edge of Queensbury housing and 1227 feet a few
hundred yards further on at the top of the hill in the hamlet of
Mountain. In Bradford City centre within a few hundred yards of City
Hall the ground drops to 312 feet so I could have with almost equal
justification claimed a height difference of 900 feet at under 4.5 miles
distance.

Isn't the height difference between the ends of the road(s) the
important thing here?

That would be near enough 900 feet from a house in Mountain to one in
the city centre or 800 feet if you stick to the A road. But the water
main network would feed both the house in Mountain and the lowest one in
the city centre.

428 feet AMSL (711 feet down from Queensbury) would put you part way up
Little Horton Lane, outside the city centre.

--
Roger Chapman

[Mike Barnes]

In uk.d-i-y, Roger wrote:
The message
from Mike Barnes contains these words:

FYI I used Fugawi 1:50000, took the grid reference of Queensbury as
SE09962 30999, Bradford City centre as SE16462 32939 and computed the
difference by trig.

Isn't the length of the road(s) the important thing here?

Why on earth should it be? The distance was given to illustrate the
closeness of Queensbury to the city centre.

Because what started me off was you writing "Here in Yorkshire 500 feet
is not an uncommon difference in height between the top and bottom of an
urban road". Unless you've unilaterally changed the subject, it's still
that urban road we're talking about.

I think I'll stop now.

--
Mike Barnes

[Roger]

The message
from Mike Barnes contains these words:

Google Earth gives the
height difference as 711 feet.

I have just had a look at google earth. Fugawis height grid is not
perfect but it is a good deal better than GEs.

The crossroads GE identifies as Queensbury has a GE height of 1130 feet,
Fugawi has it at 1134 feet and interpolation between contour lines puts
it at 1139 feet. Some of Bradford City centre including City Hall is
below the 100m contour (328 feet) which agrees quite well with Fugawis
330 feet but GE has the heights consistantly higher. Perhaps it is
working off the tops of the buildings.

None of this of course explains where Mike got his 711 foot height
difference from. The point GE identifies as Bradford has a GE height of
352 feet and even with GE 419 feet AMSL is well outside the city centre.

--
Roger Chapman

[Roger]

The message
from Mike Barnes contains these words:

Why on earth should it be? The distance was given to illustrate the
closeness of Queensbury to the city centre.

Because what started me off was you writing "Here in Yorkshire 500 feet
is not an uncommon difference in height between the top and bottom of an
urban road". Unless you've unilaterally changed the subject, it's still
that urban road we're talking about.

Which you immediately translated into 'individual roads with a height
difference of 500 feet are common' which is not the same thing at all.
'Not uncommon' is not the direct equivalent of 'common'.

It doesn't matter what route you take from A to B the actual distance
between the 2 points remains the same both in horizontal distance and
vertical elevation.

I made it clear some time ago that I never intended to mean a single
named road but a stretch of tarmac between the upper and lower
boundaries of an urban area.

--
Roger Chapman

[Mike Barnes]

In uk.d-i-y, Roger wrote:
The message
from Mike Barnes contains these words:

Google Earth gives the
height difference as 711 feet.

I have just had a look at google earth. Fugawis height grid is not
perfect but it is a good deal better than GEs.

The crossroads GE identifies as Queensbury has a GE height of 1130 feet,
Fugawi has it at 1134 feet and interpolation between contour lines puts
it at 1139 feet. Some of Bradford City centre including City Hall is
below the 100m contour (328 feet) which agrees quite well with Fugawis
330 feet but GE has the heights consistantly higher. Perhaps it is
working off the tops of the buildings.

None of this of course explains where Mike got his 711 foot height
difference from.

It's not my 711 feet, it's Google Earth's, as I pointed out.

Bradford: In one of my replies in this thread I listed Chester St as the
first of the roads on the road to Queensbury. GE marks the start of this
route (junction of Chester St and Little Horton Lane) as 123 metres.

Queensbury: GE marks it with a red dot at elevation 340 metres.

340 metres - 123 metres = 217 metres = 711.9 of your Yorkshire "feet".

The point GE identifies as Bradford has a GE height of
352 feet

Are you sure? The point that *my* GE identifies with a red dot as
"Bradford" (-1.7574,53.7972) is shown with an elevation of 127 metres
(416.7 feet).

--
Mike Barnes

[Mike Barnes]

I'd stopped, but you've started me off again...

In uk.d-i-y, Roger wrote:
The message
from Mike Barnes contains these words:

Why on earth should it be? The distance was given to illustrate the
closeness of Queensbury to the city centre.

Because what started me off was you writing "Here in Yorkshire 500 feet
is not an uncommon difference in height between the top and bottom of an
urban road". Unless you've unilaterally changed the subject, it's still
that urban road we're talking about.

Which you immediately translated into 'individual roads with a height
difference of 500 feet are common' [...]

No I didn't. If you're going to put words in quotes and attribute them
to me, please be careful to quote what I actually said. I never used the
word "individual" and I never used the word "common".

It doesn't matter what route you take from A to B the actual distance
between the 2 points remains the same both in horizontal distance and
vertical elevation.

Obviously.

I made it clear some time ago that I never intended to mean a single
named road but a stretch of tarmac between the upper and lower
boundaries of an urban area.

Had you started off by writing "Here in this area of Yorkshire 500 feet
is not an uncommon difference in height between the top and bottom of a
stretch of road between the upper and lower boundaries of an urban
area", you'd have got no disagreement from me (I'm actually not the
southerner that some people seem to think I am). But you actually wrote
"Here in Yorkshire 500 feet is not an uncommon difference in height
between the top and bottom of an urban road", and I suspected that was
an exaggeration. Your subsequent trimming, and the lack of good
examples, means I still do think it was an exaggeration. Not that
there's anything wrong with that, of course, as long it's recognised for
what it is.

--
Mike Barnes

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:10:36 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:


|Isn't the height difference between the ends of the road(s) the
|important thing here?

Bradford used to be a collection of villages, connected by lanes. in this
case Bradford, Shearbridge, Great Horton, Horton Bank Bottom, Horton
Bank, Horton Bank Top, Clayton Hieghts, Old Dolphin, Calden Banks, Scarlet
Hieghts, I may have missed, or added one or two. The names of the roads
between the villages originated in those times, and are very resistant to
change, because no one is happy with a change of address.

As it happens last night I drove from Horton Bank Top to Shearbridge and
the I use whole of the Bradford -- Queensbury route regularly.

The modern road looks to anyone driving or walking on it, as one continuous
road.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

[Roger]

The message
from Mike Barnes contains these words:

I'd stopped, but you've started me off again...

Why on earth should it be? The distance was given to illustrate the
closeness of Queensbury to the city centre.

Because what started me off was you writing "Here in Yorkshire 500 feet
is not an uncommon difference in height between the top and bottom of an
urban road". Unless you've unilaterally changed the subject, it's still
that urban road we're talking about.

And that allowed you to totally disregard "Queensbury, a suburb of
Bradford, and little
more than 4 miles from the city centre"?

Which you immediately translated into 'individual roads with a height
difference of 500 feet are common' [...]

No I didn't. If you're going to put words in quotes and attribute them
to me, please be careful to quote what I actually said. I never used the
word "individual" and I never used the word "common".

If you want a reputation as a pedant rather than a querulous old bore
you really need to distinguish between ' and ". My understanding of what
you meant was influenced by several points you made, two of which are
really apposite. "that looks to me like several roads" and "far from
commonplace". Commonplace incidentally is a synonym for common.

It doesn't matter what route you take from A to B the actual distance
between the 2 points remains the same both in horizontal distance and
vertical elevation.

Obviously.

I made it clear some time ago that I never intended to mean a single
named road but a stretch of tarmac between the upper and lower
boundaries of an urban area.

Had you started off by writing "Here in this area of Yorkshire 500 feet
is not an uncommon difference in height between the top and bottom of a
stretch of road between the upper and lower boundaries of an urban
area", you'd have got no disagreement from me (I'm actually not the
southerner that some people seem to think I am). But you actually wrote
"Here in Yorkshire 500 feet is not an uncommon difference in height
between the top and bottom of an urban road", and I suspected that was
an exaggeration. Your subsequent trimming, and the lack of good
examples, means I still do think it was an exaggeration. Not that
there's anything wrong with that, of course, as long it's recognised for
what it is.

500 is a nice round number. Given that it was immediately preceded by a
reference to a 100 foot hill you should have received at least a hint
that that fitted anything between 450 and 549 feet. That you then chose
to built an argument on the difference between a named road and a
continuous stretch of roadway says much more about your mental processes
than it does about my original statement.

Several examples were given by myself and others and more would have
been forthcoming (Sheffield for instance) had you not picked another
argument over Queensbury in which you chose to rubbish my claim about
the height difference between Queensbury and Bradford City centre with
dubious data from Google Earth and a deliberate attempt to mislead by
picking a point well outside the centre for your start point.

--
Roger Chapman

[Roger]

The message
from Mike Barnes contains these words:

Google Earth gives the
height difference as 711 feet.

I have just had a look at google earth. Fugawis height grid is not
perfect but it is a good deal better than GEs.

The crossroads GE identifies as Queensbury has a GE height of 1130 feet,
Fugawi has it at 1134 feet and interpolation between contour lines puts
it at 1139 feet. Some of Bradford City centre including City Hall is
below the 100m contour (328 feet) which agrees quite well with Fugawis
330 feet but GE has the heights consistently higher. Perhaps it is
working off the tops of the buildings.

None of this of course explains where Mike got his 711 foot height
difference from.

It's not my 711 feet, it's Google Earth's, as I pointed out.

But GE doesn't give the height difference between Queensbury and
Bradford City Centre as 711 feet, it's 778 feet (and wrong).

Bradford: In one of my replies in this thread I listed Chester St as the
first of the roads on the road to Queensbury. GE marks the start of this
route (junction of Chester St and Little Horton Lane) as 123 metres.

Queensbury: GE marks it with a red dot at elevation 340 metres.

340 metres - 123 metres = 217 metres = 711.9 of your Yorkshire "feet".

The point GE identifies as Bradford has a GE height of
352 feet

Are you sure? The point that *my* GE identifies with a red dot as
"Bradford" (-1.7574,53.7972) is shown with an elevation of 127 metres
(416.7 feet).

I spent a few seconds puzzling over what those strange numbers were that
appeared to place Bradford South of the Equator before realising that
the traditional positions of latitude and longitude had been reversed.

I haven't come across any red dots on GE but at high magnification (and
it has to be reasonably high to even identify Chester Street the only
bit of Chester Street (if it really is Chester Street) that is 416 feet
is on what looks like a flyover over little Horton Lane and not on the
A647 route out of Bradford. (Chester Street was one of several roads
between Little Horton Lane and Morley Street before the latest roadworks
but it might not be a flyover as GE doesn't give a height difference
between the surface of Chester Street and Little Horton Lane).

To get the GE position of Queensbury and and Bradford I just typed in
Queensbury, England and Bradford, England. (What could be simpler?) In
metric mode GE gives the height of Queensbury as 344m, not 340 and of
Bradford as 107m. GE Bradford is at lat. 53.793812, long. -1.752471.
City Hall is somewhat South of the GE position. Both are in an area of
Bradford that according to the OS is below the 100 metre contour.

--
Roger Chapman

[Mike Barnes]

In uk.d-i-y, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
I use whole of the Bradford -- Queensbury route regularly.

The modern road looks to anyone driving or walking on it, as one continuous
road.

So when you earlier wrote "Bradford to Queensbury A647", can I take it
that you didn't really mean the A647 all the way? If you followed the
A647 (as shown in my road atlas and Google Earth) you'd be turning right
at the end of Dirkhill Road onto All Saints Road, then turning left at
the traffic lights onto Great Horton Road.

Incidentally, what are/were those white boxes painted on the road at
those traffic lights?

--
Mike Barnes