CL Locations

They have done that for the last 2 editions of the site directory, The reason is so that they can have consecutive numbers which include new sites and exclude those that closed during the previous 2 yrs. They could of course used a numbering system that would take into account these occurrences, but that would have required some "blue sky thinking" something the CC seem unable to do.

agree in principal nelliethehooker but numbers 718 and 719 are only two miles from 1679 not very consecutive

For each handbook they are numbered consecutivlely within the "regions", with an arbitary order for the regions.

It is quite a daft way of doing things, as I would expect each CL is given a sequential serial number when it is added to the Caravan Club's system. But why use that when jobs can be created renumbering them for the print runs every two years.

Not having our Site Directory yet, as we're away and have been for the last 3 weeks, I cannot look at the ones you've mentioned, but it looks by the numbers as if the sites fall into different counties. There has to be some system of differentiation, be it by county as per the CC, or by OS map reference no. as per C&CC. Hope this make sense.

Aren't they number consecutively within a county with the counties ordered alphabetically? That's the way it was in the previous issues of the SD.

Could be!  I just assumed a similarity with the (re)numbering of the Club sites.

Hi everyone,

Just to clear up the confusion here - The CLs are listed in numerical order in the book, so that if you are using the map to look for a CL it is then easy to find the listing in the book. Because CLs leave and join the network and we have some changes to listing towns the CLs are not always in the same order from one Directory to the next, so if the CL numbers didn’t change then the sites wouldn’t be listed numerically. This would make it much harder to look in the book for a CL that you had found on the map.

Hope that helps

Ro, that still doesn't explain the reason for selecting that way of numbering in the first instance. Surely there could have been a better numerical method used so that new sites could be included in sequence, and sites could retain their own number. If I remember correctly Alan at Greenacre CL proposed one when this number system was introduced 4/5 yrs ago.

A county prefix letter or two followed by a number. That would enable sensible indexing whilst retaining continuity. Is no-one applying any grey cells to these issues?

That's the way I would do it Cyberyacht and it would be easy to check CL's in an area except county boundaries.

David