<div dir="ltr">On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Warin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com" target="_blank">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="gmail-m_3379805867600931999moz-cite-prefix">On 02/08/18 23:00, Paul Allen wrote:<br></div></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div class="gmail-m_3379805867600931999moz-cite-prefix">
</div>
I recently came across someone adding the address as the name,
unfortunately one of the buildings had a real name that I recalled
.. and it was not the address. <br>
So while the address may be displayed outside on the building
facade, I would not take it to be the name of the building without
further evidence. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This one was a difficult call. On its own I'd have said it was a pretentious way of displaying the house number.<br></div><div>But there's a name plate in the same material, style, font and lack of weathering for "The Annexe" which is arrived<br></div><div>at via a footpath at the side which leads to a rear extension of the building. The building in question had no other<br></div><div>identification but through the window I could see it was an office of some nature. It also had an entry phone with<br></div><div>a notice saying that callers needed an appointment. The Annexe, though, identified the function of the place.<br><br></div><div>I know, from the Annexe signage, they were hiding their function from the general public. Although I understand their<br></div><div>reasoning, I also know that security through obscurity doesn't work (but I'm respecting their secrecy anyway). Although<br></div><div>they don't want the general public to know what they do, they want their legitimate callers to be sure they've found the<br></div><div>right place. A housename unlikely to appear on any other house on a different street meets that need. I'd have chosen<br></div><div>something like "Coprolite" or "Tibetan Blackbird" but not everyone has my sense of humour.<br><br></div><div>The other thing about using "Number 39" as a house name is that they don't have to go through the process of<br></div><div>formally registering the name with the County Council, which they are legally required to do (almost nobody does,<br></div><div>but they're supposed to). They can tell the council it's just a number, not a name, and the council would have<br></div><div>better things to do than push the point.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Difficult call, but it quacked more like a house name than a number. As you can see from this (which I don't<br></div><div>use for mapping but is acceptable for making a point here): <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.0824887,-4.6596585,3a,15y,119.06h,86.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shXJ2DTi4jllXdFtJpx1xnw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656">https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.0824887,-4.6596585,3a,15y,119.06h,86.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shXJ2DTi4jllXdFtJpx1xnw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656</a> The sign for<br></div><div>"The Annexe" is blurred but you can see it. If "Number 39" were intended to be a house number they'd have put<br></div><div>"39" and "39A" on the signs. Fewer letters so lower cost for the two signs.<br><br>-- <br></div><div>Paul<br><br></div></div></div></div>