National Postcodes to be introduced

plodder

Sam Russell wrote: »

Any post code could address the unique address problem, just make the small area small enough.

The problem with that is you would get multiple codes for many properties. It's a lot more useful if you can be sure there is one and only one code per property.

It is still not too late to make Eircode hierarchical.

True. At least to the extent that it would make no difference to any of the work they have communicated externally. Eg if An Post are expecting a three character routing key, and a random four character property identifier, then they can still use it that way, because the next level of structure is not likely to be useful for them anyway.

plodder

Leonard Shelby wrote: »

The postcode is two parts, the first part has hierarchy the second doesn't. You will remember them as two memory chunks, therefore additional hierarchy in the second part of the code will not aid memory recall. In the same manner that you don't have difficulty remembering your mobile phone number even though it is very different to your neighbours.

Think of it this way. If a fully random code is 100% hard to remember then since Eircode is only 57% random, it's only 57% hard to remember. People will remember their own Eircode regardless of how it is structured. Will they remember any of their neighbour's though?

Small business have no need to license Eircode. They will use products that contain postcode data. Using hierachy in a postcode will generate a more efficient route than random ordering, but won't generate the most efficient route, which requires technology. This is known as the Travelling Salesperson problem.

Absolutely. So, you give people the option of subscribing to a value-added service to get all the bells and whistles, if that's what they want. But, you shouldn't be forcing them to use it. Joe the Plumber might not need a solution to the "Travelling Salesperson problem" because he has other considerations, like he needs to drop by the builders suppliers on his way from A to B. Technology isn't the answer to every problem. Believe me, I've worked in the business long enough to know that.

Solutions aren't difficult when you actually try to think of them rather than simply wave your hands in the air. Input postcode into "privacy" app, output Small Area, give to market survey person. Alternatively data protection requirements may make this standard practice on behalf of the receiving company, take postcode but don't store it, store the Small Area instead.

You're missing the point, I'm afraid. In some cases, people won't want to provide their exact postcode, despite whatever assurances they are given that the data controller won't store it. If you only provided the first five characters of the code, you know they can't store it, because they never had it.

And why should we be looking for solutions to problems that the design creates anyway?

You can't "predict" your postcode hierarchy accurately, even then it is only a partial postcode, you don't have a full one.

I see this argument has moved on from the initial "with a hierarchical code you could give them your postcode, with a random one it is of no use" which was ludicrous to now you could receive a callout charge for a property that isn't yours because you've phoned the emergency services. Utter nonsense.

These are just specific examples of what can happen. it's a genuine issue that deserves analysis, not bluster.

There are NO benefits for government for a hierarchical code. It is already unique to each address. This allows any boundary to be used as required. Small areas are simply one such example. Your point is completely invalid.

I think you are saying that government depts will have complete access to the Eircode databases for their own purposes, and that is correct. They will be able to do whatever they want. But some govt depts might actually take a broader view and have an opinion on whether the code is fit for purpose more broadly.

Why otherwise did the Dept of Health say they favoured a hierarchical code? The Dept of Transport suggested a grid based model, which would be hierarchical too.

Leonard Shelby

plodder wrote: »

Think of it this way. If a fully random code is 100% hard to remember then since Eircode is only 57% random, it's only 57% hard to remember. People will remember their own Eircode regardless of how it is structured. Will they remember any of their neighbour's though?

The 57% figure is mathematical nonsense. Go google memory chunking.

There are precisely zero real world scenarios that require anyone to "remember" their neighbours postcode.

Absolutely. So, you give people the option of subscribing to a value-added service to get all the bells and whistles, if that's what they want. But, you shouldn't be forcing them to use it. Joe the Plumber might not need a solution to the "Travelling Salesperson problem" because he has other considerations, like he needs to drop by the builders suppliers on his way from A to B. Technology isn't the answer to every problem. Believe me, I've worked in the business long enough to know that.

Ridiculous example. Has Joe forgotten where the builder's suppliers is located or has someone hidden the addresses of A and B?

You're missing the point, I'm afraid. In some cases, people won't want to provide their exact postcode, despite whatever assurances they are given that the data controller won't store it. If you only provided the first five characters of the code, you know they can't store it, because they never had it.

Don't provide your postcode. Simple solution. Provide a postcode of the local post office. Simple solution.

And why should we be looking for solutions to problems that the design creates anyway?

Because you don't need to find solutions to the problems that it solves. If the design included hierarchy there would be plenty of genuine problems to be solved.

I think you are saying that government depts will have complete access to the Eircode databases for their own purposes, and that is correct. They will be able to do whatever they want. But some govt depts might actually take a broader view and have an opinion on whether the code is fit for purpose more broadly.

Why otherwise did the Dept of Health say they favoured a hierarchical code? The Dept of Transport suggested a grid based model, which would be hierarchical too.

As all the Departments are on board it is safe to assume they consider the postcode fit for purpose.

plodder

Leonard. I'm not sure why you even bother. Your responses are dismissive and frankly lamentable. You aren't addressing any of the points that people raise.

Leonard Shelby wrote: »

If the design included hierarchy there would be plenty of genuine problems to be solved.

I listed two possible problems. What others are there?

Leonard Shelby

plodder wrote: »

Leonard. I'm not sure why you even bother. Your responses are dismissive and frankly lamentable. You aren't addressing any of the points that people raise.

I listed two possible problems. What others are there?

You're correct, I shouldn't bother. The design is done and dusted with zero possibility of being changed.

Sam Russell

Leonard Shelby wrote: »

You're correct, I shouldn't bother. The design is done and dusted with zero possibility of being changed.

Didn't they say that about eVoting and Irish Water?

a65b2cd

So let us say hierarchical is better than a random 2nd element and that Capita have seen the wisdom of this and restructured the code ...

So b2cd is now a structured code with b2 = small area as suggested in recent posts ...

So I am in Dun Laoghaire and I have two parcels to deliver to small area b2

So how do I deliver them?

I know A65 = Dun Laoghaire
B2 = a small area of around 75 households

How do I deliver the two parcels knowing that somewhere in Dun Laoghaire is a homogenous cluster of 75 households with a small area code of b2

What advantage is the hierarchical code giving me?

Please don't tell me to access the database or to use the text address.

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

plodder

a65b2cd wrote: »

So let us say hierarchical is better than a random 2nd element and that Capita have seen the wisdom of this and restructured the code ...

So b2cd is now a structured code with b2 = small area as suggested in recent posts ...

So I am in Dun Laoghaire and I have two parcels to deliver to small area b2

So how do I deliver them?

I know A65 = Dun Laoghaire
B2 = a small area of around 75 households

How do I deliver the two parcels knowing that somewhere in Dun Laoghaire is a homogenous cluster of 75 households with a small area code of b2

What advantage is the hierarchical code giving me?

Please don't tell me to access the database or to use the text address.

Its basically the same code. So your satnav will have the database on it. The advantage is that all you would need is a satnav to work out basic routing.

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

a65b2cd

yuloni wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

... Yes it appears that a navigation device is needed irrespective of whether B2CD is hierarchical or random so what use is a hierarchical code if a navigation device is needed to find the sub-area.

> Easy pre-sorting and grouping of your deliveries without software before leaving the depot

... Yes that would be very useful if I had a lot of deliveries but there must be around 600 small areas in Dun Laoghaire so I better get a much bigger van and shelves and doors if I want to use such a granular hierarchy and create some optimal sequencing of those 600 small areas.

> Will offer efficiencies on the ground when you have a number of parcels to deliver within that one smaller cluster (logical route progression, less wasted road-miles)

... Yes I could have wasted a lot of time deciding which of the two parcels to deliver first.

> May alleviate the need to lookup the exact locations of each parcel as you are already now in the small area where they are to be dropped

... But how did I get into the small area?

antoinolachtnai

The small areas would obviously be grouped. The first character would be the group, and so would indicate a broad general area of Dun Laoghaire (or wherever) and the second character would be the specific small area within that bigger group. This would mean that if you were local, you could look at the code and know whether it was in the east or west Dun Laoghaire.

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

a65b2cd

yuloni wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree fully that we should use a code that identifies an address uniquely and allows navigation devices to bring you to it. That can be Loc8. GOcode, or Eircode.

I can't see how an anonymous hierarchical code is of any use for finding an address. A hierarchical area like Glasthule or Monkstown is of use but not an area that is meaningless to people who live there as well as being meaningless to service providers.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The small areas would obviously be grouped. The first character would be the group, and so would indicate a broad general area of Dun Laoghaire (or wherever) and the second character would be the specific small area within that bigger group. This would mean that if you were local, you could look at the code and know whether it was in the east or west Dun Laoghaire.

Thanks I had overlooked that option and seen it simply as a matter of arranging the 600 small areas of 75 households each when it would be much more fun to arrange them into 30 larger areas with each of those larger areas containing 20 areas of 75 households!

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

a65b2cd

yuloni wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you mean if I am not against Eircodes that I must, by definition, be a member of the consortium? Other posters have also suffered the same with us or against us attitude from a small number of superior posters.

Carawaystick

Leonard Shelby wrote: »

There are precisely zero real world scenarios that require anyone to "remember" their neighbours postcode.

I'm in my neighbours house. He gets incapacitated and needs emergency services.
I don't know his postcode. The first 3 characters are useless, so I've to give non-postcode directions.

Leonard Shelby

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'm in my neighbours house. He gets incapacitated and needs emergency services.
I don't know his postcode. The first 3 characters are useless, so I've to give non-postcode directions.

Give your own postcode and give directions to your neighbours house from there. As he is your neighbour, it won't be very far away...

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

Bray Head

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'm in my neighbours house. He gets incapacitated and needs emergency services.
I don't know his postcode. The first 3 characters are useless, so I've to give non-postcode directions.

You tell them your own postcode and where your house is in relation to his. You maybe look at his front door to see if there is a number on it to give them an extra clue. This argument is pretty moot. Even if postcodes were hierarchical you might be in a different area to him and not know it.

I've followed the hierarchical versus non-hierarchical debate for several dozen posts now. There are two good arguments:
a) Ease of manual sorting. I was reasonably sceptical but am somewhat convinced at this point that this would be useful to some low-tech, mon'n'pop firms in the delivery business.
b) Accumulation of knowledge. After several years of driving round an area you might begin to learn the hierarchical bits of the code and plan routes in your head. This would only be useful in urban areas where there are house numbers though. Non-unique addresses in rural areas with unique postcodes will always need a look-up to get you to the very end. Anyway if your job involves driving from strange place to strange place then you'll probably have a technological aid (whether networked or not).

The big objections come down the the postcode snobbery issue again. Grouping locations together becomes more and more problematic the finer you go down. There is a real risk that people will object to using postcodes if they are grouped with houses they don't want to be grouped with. This is human nature and there is no point denying it.

Finally, a hierarchical postcode system would be greatly complemented by street signs that consistent with it. This hasn't a vague chance of happening. Local authorities in Ireland are appalling at erecting and maintaining street signage and I don't see this changing.

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

SpaceTime

It's clearly been designed by someone who is used to database management and administration rather than logistics or deliveries.

It's great if the purpose is to have a semi random unique ID for managing a database. That's not what a post code is though. I'm not sure what this is... A property ID number might be a more appropriate description.

plodder

Rather than a hierarchical code having to justify itself, surely it should be the other way round. This is the first time, as far as I'm aware that a random code has been proposed for a postcode, and despite being over ten years gestating, there isn't a single document you can point to which contains a justification. How can this be acceptable?

plodder

Bray Head wrote: »

I've followed the hierarchical versus non-hierarchical debate for several dozen posts now. There are two good arguments:
a) Ease of manual sorting. I was reasonably sceptical but am somewhat convinced at this point that this would be useful to some low-tech, mon'n'pop firms in the delivery business.
b) Accumulation of knowledge. After several years of driving round an area you might begin to learn the hierarchical bits of the code and plan routes in your head. This would only be useful in urban areas where there are house numbers though. Non-unique addresses in rural areas with unique postcodes will always need a look-up to get you to the very end. Anyway if your job involves driving from strange place to strange place then you'll probably have a technological aid (whether networked or not).

Everyone focuses on the postal/delivery problem and that is fair enough but there are other uses for postcodes. Large businesses will license the postcode databases anyway. So, the issue is moot for them, but what about charities, NGOs and others who interact with people and would like to know where they live. With a hierarchical code you can sort postcodes and get a lot of information about where people live, without having to license any additional products, which NGOs and charities are less likely to be able to afford anyway.

Eircode might be able to charge more for the products that they have, if some utility can be extracted from the code itself for free.

The big objections come down the the postcode snobbery issue again. Grouping locations together becomes more and more problematic the finer you go down. There is a real risk that people will object to using postcodes if they are grouped with houses they don't want to be grouped with. This is human nature and there is no point denying it.

I don't think it's as straight forward as that. Small areas are supposed to be "atomic" in the sense that they are supposed to be the smallest grouping that is reasonably homogeneous, but large enough to retain anonymity. So, one estate of 50-100 houses could be one small area, and nobody is likely to quibble with that. In practice, small areas might not work out as regularly as that. But that is the theory. Problems are more likely to occur if you combine small areas into larger units that are no longer homogeneous. That is where you will get people at the boundaries complaining they'd rather be in larger area A as opposed to B.

But, you don't have to organise small areas into larger ones. You could come up with a simple sequential numbering scheme for small areas inside the post-towns and while it won't be perfect for organising routing, a simple map will help with that. Most important though the snobbery factor is taken care of at that level.

Sam Russell

Bray Head wrote: »

The big objections come down the the postcode snobbery issue again. Grouping locations together becomes more and more problematic the finer you go down. There is a real risk that people will object to using postcodes if they are grouped with houses they don't want to be grouped with. This is human nature and there is no point denying it.

No one objects to their phone number, which is location dependant, and hierarchical by nature. [Less so these days, but still largely so].

Number based post codes would be easier to remember, and would be less prone to snobbery. If the post code was based loosely on Eircom's numbering system then most people would know the location from the first few numbers. I know cork is 021 and Wexford is 053 with limerick 061 etc. [Drop the zero]

Snobbery would start at the fourth or fifth digit.

SpaceTime

You might as well just use phone numbers. They'd be as much use for looking up a database and at least you could ring them for directions.

The first few digits of local numbers, used to signify the exchange but, technology moved on and it's not always the case anymore. Numbers get moved around or issued on different ranges by UPC etc

The area code wouldn't be much use 01 covers a huge area as does 021, 071, 074 etc etc then other rural areas cover relatively defined areas. It's not all that logical as it's down to historical technology and charging requirements, not geography.

The phone codes could also change as ComReg of simplifying them and merging them. 01 could also be split into 03 + 8 digits or 031 & 032 etc

So I wouldn't really think linking the two systems would be a good idea.

In 20 or 30 years landline numbers mightn't even exist ...

Sam Russell

SpaceTime wrote: »

You might as well just use phone numbers. They'd be as much use for looking up a database and at least you could ring them for directions.

The first few digits of local numbers, used to signify the exchange but, technology moved on and it's not always the case anymore. Numbers get moved around or issued on different ranges by UPC etc

The area code wouldn't be much use 01 covers a huge area as does 021, 071, 074 etc etc then other rural areas cover relatively defined areas. It's not all that logical as it's down to historical technology and charging requirements, not geography.

The phone codes could also change as ComReg of simplifying them and merging them. 01 could also be split into 03 + 8 digits or 031 & 032 etc

So I wouldn't really think linking the two systems would be a good idea.

In 20 or 30 years landline numbers mightn't even exist ...

I am not suggesting using phone numbers.

I am suggesting using the logic that drove the original design, and at the higher level, to use the actual numbers. 5 digits would give a local area of about 200 addresses, with spares such as '0' and '3' and '8'. Clearly '8' could be reserved for NI addresses, should that ever become necessary. '0' could be reserved for non-geographical post codes - such as Revenue or HSE or other Gov.

The telephone exchanges were placed in proportion to population (not entirely) but the number structure does follow population density.

We could have a 5 digit post code with, say 3 random characters to bring it down to single addresses where that was considered necessary. Most urban dwellers would not bother - country folk can decide for themselves.

The fact that it was designed a long time ago does not mean it is a bad design. The OS maps of the 1850s are surprisingly accurate, and still relevant.

Carawaystick

Leonard Shelby wrote: »

Give your own postcode and give directions to your neighbours house from there. As he is your neighbour, it won't be very far away...

like drive to postcode abd1234.
Whe ye get there turn around and head back the way ye came and take the first right and second left...

directions like "go back the road" which in Limerick or Kerry mean go on the road...
they'll help.

SpaceTime

Sam Russell wrote: »

I am not suggesting using phone numbers.

I am suggesting using the logic that drove the original design, and at the higher level, to use the actual numbers. 5 digits would give a local area of about 200 addresses, with spares such as '0' and '3' and '8'. Clearly '8' could be reserved for NI addresses, should that ever become necessary. '0' could be reserved for non-geographical post codes - such as Revenue or HSE or other Gov.

The telephone exchanges were placed in proportion to population (not entirely) but the number structure does follow population density.

We could have a 5 digit post code with, say 3 random characters to bring it down to single addresses where that was considered necessary. Most urban dwellers would not bother - country folk can decide for themselves.

The fact that it was designed a long time ago does not mean it is a bad design. The OS maps of the 1850s are surprisingly accurate, and still relevant.

Telephone exchanges are placed geographically, not in proportion to population. They range in size from as few as 100 lines to 30,000 lines. They have to be placed so the lines aren't longer than about 10km absolute maximum.

The number structure also doesn't follow population. It reflects the era of technology in use when the areas were originally numbered and wastes huge numbers of combinations in low density areas

Very high population areas often had less complicated numbering as they'd crossbar exchanges in the 60s - 70s that could cope with more flexible numbering where as rural areas often had much harder structured numbers because they were using manual exchanges and very old technology when the system was drawn up.

For example 021, 01, 061 and 091 cover very large areas both physical and population. While you've 8 area codes for the most low population parts of county Cork and umpteen 09x codes etc etc

With digital exchanges (introduced here in 1980), numbering is just an electronic address. Each exchange doesn't necessarily need or have its own number range.

It's not really suitable for postcodes.

Sam Russell

I find it hard to explain.

You do not need to follow exactly the phone number system, just the logic of it. The phone number system evolved over many decades, but it does follow a hierarchical system and a logic that could be the basis of a numeric post code system.