ROC forum topic naming

[mattc]

Ah I see, slightly crossed wires there! I hadn't really thought much before about the HQ groupings, as most of my research has been using SubBrit where they are all listed by County.

 

[Maniac]

Ah I see, slightly crossed wires there! I hadn't really thought much before about the HQ groupings, as most of my research has been using SubBrit where they are all listed by County.

Does make you wonder if anyone actually knows what posts were attributed to what group HQ, as that information doesn't seem to appear on Subbrits website anywhere, or anywhere else on the net that I can find.

It might be easier to do it by county, as thats the easiest information to obtain.

 

[krela]

Hahah I can see this one running forever.

 

[mattc]

I think it's kind of impossible to use the 29 'groups' as the info is not included on SubBrit and as you point out, it's open to interpretation! Would be tidy if you could use them though, as 29 is a nice number of groupings, but traditionally people have generally used the county so probably best to stick to that. The drop-down is a great idea, but maybe too much complication compared to the potential benefit?

 

[krela]

Possibly.

I'll have a think about it.

 

[Maniac]

I think the things that's confusing is the use of the word 'group'

When I see that word used in relation to an ROC post, I think of it as being the group HQ that that post was attributed to, and not the county. but obviously the word can also be used to describe the county the post is in, afterall it's still a grouping, just a different one!

edit: Yes I agree, much easier to list by county, but the drop down list would be huge so maybe easier to leave it as is and let people type it in. You could put a bit of guidence in the FAQ at the top to make sure people put the right thing, as I would have probably tryed to work out what group HQ the post is part of, and not neccessarily put the county.

 

[mattc]

I think the things that's confusing is the use of the word 'group'

You could put a bit of guidence in the FAQ at the top to make sure people put the right thing, as I would have probably tryed to work out what group HQ the post is part of, and not neccessarily put the county.

You are of course right that in ROC terms 'group' really means which of the 29 HQs they reported to. It seems that over on 'the other forum' group got used to mean county and it's kind of stuck.

Anyway, I've clarified it in the first post as suggested.

 

[krela]

In an ideal world I would prefer to keep them organised in the same way they were when opened, but that information doesn't seem to be easy to access.

 

[Neosea]

I expected that but I did discuss it with Krela first! I wouldn't be so brazen to tell you lot what to do on a second post otherwise


Ref comment above about hierarchy: it does make sense from a strict logic point of view, but I think generally people are more interested in specific posts than groups so having that as the primary field works best. On the occasion you do want to view a whole group the search will work effectively.

Yes I asked him to write this, so don't jump the gun

When you guys have decided how to do the naming I'll make it official.

Shepy your suggestion is a good one... assuming people manage to keep the spelling and format of the group name consistent.

If this forum gets very busy I may give it it's own moderator to keep things shipshape.

Figures

 

[krela]

Does a list actually exist of what post belongs to what proper group.

I.E. can I easily find out which ROC posts were covered by group 12 (bristol)?

 

[gridnutter]

The book Attack Warning Red might contain that information, thats about the only place I can think of, short of writing to the MoD and asking under the FOI act?

 

[krela]

Well, if the information doesn't exist then it's going to be hard to ask people to put it in the title of their post isn't it?

I FOIA request might be worthwhile, if only to get the information?

 

[fezzyben]

you should be able to get the info krela as the only reason that they wouldnt release it is if it currently affects national security. if not theres a book called 4 minute warning that allegedly lists most cold war structures

 

[Maniac]

I've just sent out a bunch of e-mails to various organisations that may be able to provide that information, so we'll see what replies I get.

 

[gridnutter]

Just a thought, have you tried ROCA?

 

[Bryag]

Just to throw a small spanner in the works here. Scottish ROC posts are grouped by area and not county. For example, the Inverness group covers from Caithness in the north through to Argyll in the south and pretty much everywhere in between. This means that the Inverness group alone encompasses no fewer than 5 counties.

Here is a map of the Inverness group

and one of the Aberdeen Group

So

John O Groats in the county of Catihness, is in The Inverness Group

and

Tarbert in Argyllshire is also in the Inverness group.

I don't know if this makes any difference, but I think it would be better if they were sorted by county, as there is about 300 miles distance between the afore-mentioned posts, despite being in the same group.

Please note, these groupings are post '69 closures, and any ROC post closed in '69 may have been grouped differently, previously. eg Argyll was absorbed into Inverness group after the closure of Oban in '69.

 

[Bax__]

Bryag,

When the closed posts and re-designated posts to different groups etc did the post numbers change? The reason I ask is that according to your map the Methlick Post is "Post 50" as mentioned on an envelope in the Post but there's a sign in the Post saying "Post 45 Methlick"

Andy

 

[foz101]

The post 'groups' are named according to whichever Group HQ they reported to. Hence most of Perthshire and Fife being in 'Dundee Group' as they reported in to Craigiebarns in Dundee.

UK list here - http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/roc/group_hq.html

Map pic from Alyth ROC post (a master). I've adjusted the levels as best I can as it was a bit dark.

 

[snappel]

Often a good source of information is the post itself. Some (in fact, quite a few) still contain the maps showing the groups and the post clusters (in sub-groups of three, one of which was a master post). By comparing these maps to the grid references, post numbers can be attributed to the posts (if number isn't found on other equipment, such as post diary) and the structure of the group determined.

However, this is largely down to what's left below ground, so would need to be a concerted group effort. I'm surprised Subbrit doesn't give this information, bearing in mind that a lot of the other information Nick Catford has obtained is very detailed.

 

[zimbob]

Often a good source of information is the post itself. Some (in fact, quite a few) still contain the maps showing the groups and the post clusters (in sub-groups of three, one of which was a master post). By comparing these maps to the grid references, post numbers can be attributed to the posts (if number isn't found on other equipment, such as post diary) and the structure of the group determined.

Aye this is a very good point.

In one Post I was in there was a typed booklet, which listed all the Scottish Posts by group, name and number - an excellent resource, I might have to borrow it and copy it.....