In message on Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:14:11 -0000
Robin wrote:

and it would be helpful to give her PostCode in any further posts
(there's no need to provide the full PostCode - the first part should
suffice for urban areas but may need more of the code in rural areas
where PostCodes tend to cover much larger areas.)

Even in London just the first part of the post code could mislead
terribly. There are such things as tower blocks which cast long
shadows. And even some hills.


Agreed - but many people are reluctant to give their full PostCode these days. I don't
know why, particularly when they post under a pseudonym as, when discussing a subject
like this, accuracy can be important.

The funny thing is that, as maps show the centre of the PostCode area - which may well be
a field or park, even in London, the chances of revealing their precise location (which,
presumably, is what they want to hide) is pretty much unlikely.

My own full PostCode covers a row of nearly 30 houses. The terrain is level, broadside
onto the local transmitter and there are no tower blocks or tall trees, so it doesn't
make any difference which precise point you choose.

However, in an identical geographical area, half the houses might be on one side of a
hill and the the remainder on the other side. The precise location could then determine
the choice of transmitter or, if there is only one, just how easy or difficult it would
be to receive a decent signal.

So, even a full PostCode doesn't tell the whole story: we have to rely on the common
sense of posters to provide the other important imformation that only their eyes can
provide ...


IMLE there are even some hills in Suffolk which can militate for a
longer mast.

But the current use of a set top aerial suggest that no hills are involved in the current
scenario ...

As for hills, a quick glance at spot heights on the OS map suggests that a heath, at 64
metres aod, is pretty much what passes for 'high' in Suffolk ...

http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/mendlesham/index.php

--

Terry