B7067 found?

[rileyrob]

I think I may have just found the B7067. It is the B7069.
As I've just put on the wiki article, the 1971 edition of the OS 1:25,000 sheet labels what is now the B7069 as the B7067. Bearing in mind it has mislabelled part of the B7066 as the B7006, this could be a result of poor handwriting, but as we have never previously found a B7067, perhaps the OS were correct, and someone else got it wrong? After all, the B7066 and B7069 would have been assigned numbers at the same time, so why the gap between the numbers??

Unfortunately the large scale OS sheets are dated 1974 so won't be out of copyright until next year for checking.

[jgharston]

Unfortunately the large scale OS sheets are dated 1974 so won't be out of copyright until next year for checking.

Well, you can check them, you just won't be able to publish them until next year.

[Steven]

Unfortunately the large scale OS sheets are dated 1974 so won't be out of copyright until next year for checking.

Well, you can check them, you just won't be able to publish them until next year.

You can check them if you own paper copies. But you can't check any online sources such as SABRE Maps or the NLS if you know a particular sheet was published then.

[Euan]

It certainly seems plausible that with its last digit the B7067 number may have been misinterpreted as a poorly written B7069 somewhere in written documentation. It definitely makes more sense chronologically to have the B7067 branch off of the B7066 than have the B7069 branch off. It looks like it may have been unclear for a time as to what the number of the old A705 in Whitburn actually was.

The B7066-71 numbers all appear to have been first allocated in the late 1960s so if any decision was made to draw a line under the matter and avoid potential confusion in having the B7069 number allocated in a more expected/intentional place as well as a disputed B7067/B7069, it may have been made promptly at the time.

[Summers-lad]

Bearing in mind it has mislabelled part of the B7066 as the B7006,

In the Wiki article you've written B7066 both times. I presume you meant to write as above?

[rileyrob]

Bearing in mind it has mislabelled part of the B7066 as the B7006,

In the Wiki article you've written B7066 both times. I presume you meant to write as above?

Well spotted, thanks. Just goes to show how easy it is to mistype a number