National Postcodes to be introduced

a65b2cd

plodder wrote: »

Let's consider the issue of maintenance of small-areas (SA) and how that might impact a postcode that was based on them. In other words, how often would people's postcode need to change based on the changing environment with new houses being built etc?

There would be regular changes in small areas in new build areas. A small area has been designed to have 80-120 households so they cover quite a big area in rural areas - the average national small area size is 3.5 sq. km. Any new estates in these large areas would result in most existing dwellings in those small areas being assigned to new small areas. This would cause chaos in the use of eircodes.

Another drawback is that houses on opposite sides of the street in urban areas tend to be in different small areas!

plodder

a65b2cd wrote: »

There would be regular changes in small areas in new build areas. A small area has been designed to have 80-120 households so they cover quite a big area in rural areas - the average national small area size is 3.5 sq. km. Any new estates in these large areas would result in most existing dwellings in those small areas being assigned to new small areas. This would cause chaos in the use of eircodes.

No, a new group of houses that isn't big enough to make a new SA would be added to an existing one. If it's big enough to be new SA then it becomes a new SA. In neither of those scenarios would existing postcodes be affected.

Another drawback is that houses on opposite sides of the street in urban areas tend to be in different small areas!

Only some streets obviously, but why is that a drawback? If you're happy with a random code, why would that bother you?

a65b2cd

plodder wrote: »

No, a new group of houses that isn't big enough to make a new SA would be added to an existing one. If it's big enough to be new SA then it becomes a new SA. In neither of those scenarios would existing postcodes be affected.

Let us take an example small area spread out over 16 sq. km and containing 100 households that are well spread. A new large estate of 80 households is built in the middle of it (farmer sells a few fields) which forms a natural new small area of its own. The existing households have to be allocated to contiguous small areas with all existing households acquiring new small area codes in the process. If they are added together with the new estate then 180 households is too large and will only get larger.

plodder wrote: »

Only some streets obviously, but why is that a drawback? If you're happy with a random code, why would that bother you?

Sorry I thought you were trying to develop small clusters of houses that can be grouped together in a natural manner. Splitting the houses on both sides of a typical suburban road is not very instinctive if you are delivering parcels to that street unless you are following London car access rules and only delivering to uneven numbered houses on that day! I would use the individual eircodes to build my own clusters appropriate to the particular need that I was trying to meet.

antoinolachtnai

Fortunately you could still build your own clusters with a structured, non-random code.

plodder

a65b2cd wrote: »

Let us take an example small area spread out over 16 sq. km and containing 100 households that are well spread. A new large estate of 80 households is built in the middle of it (farmer sells a few fields) which forms a natural new small area of its own. The existing households have to be allocated to contiguous small areas with all existing households acquiring new small area codes in the process. If they are added together with the new estate then 180 households is too large and will only get larger.

Building a new estate in the middle of an existing rural area sounds unlikely to me. It's much more likely to be at the edge, but even so, you could create a new SA in the middle, leaving the rest of the old SA as it is.

Sorry I thought you were trying to develop small clusters of houses that can be grouped together in a natural manner. Splitting the houses on both sides of a typical suburban road is not very instinctive if you are delivering parcels to that street unless you are following London car access rules and only delivering to uneven numbered houses on that day! I would use the individual eircodes to build my own clusters appropriate to the particular need that I was trying to meet.

I see what you mean. I think if the SA's are allocated sequentially then that will help there, because you would know that postcodes in say D04 X1 are close to those in D04 X2

Bray Head

Small areas are too small to be memorable.

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that they would make a useful aid for delivery.

Sam Russell

Bray Head wrote: »

Small areas are too small to be memorable.

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that they would make a useful aid for delivery.

They would be aggregated into NSSAs and into LSAs. (Not So Small Areas and Larger Small Areas).

ukoda

Sam Russell wrote: »

They would be aggregated into NSSAs and into LSAs. (Not So Small Areas and Larger Small Areas).

Gettho's?!

Sam Russell

Shrewsbury road is in Dublin 4 and so is Ringsend. No ghetto involved in that. There are lots of areas that are poor but next to wealthy areas. That is the way it is, and always will be until we start gated communities.

ukoda

Sam Russell wrote: »

Shrewsbury road is in Dublin 4 and so is Ringsend. No ghetto involved in that. There are lots of areas that are poor but next to wealthy areas. That is the way it is, and always will be until we start gated communities.

Templeouge, Terenure and kimmage are in D26... Oh no wait... There was massive local objections and An Post caved and created D6W

antoinolachtnai

Calling D6W Dublin 26, as was originally proposed, made absolutely no sense. It totally broke the convention of how the code had been designed (lower numbers near the centre).

Using the public reaction to this magnificent piece of stupidity to justify a completely disorderly and random system does not stand up to very much scrutiny at all.

However, that is basically the eircode argument.

ukoda

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Calling D6W Dublin 26, as was originally proposed, made absolutely no sense. It totally broke the convention of how the code had been designed (lower numbers near the centre).

Using the public reaction to this magnificent piece of stupidity to justify a completely disorderly and random system does not stand up to very much scrutiny at all.

However, that is basically the eircode argument.

Im using the example to show that when you go to try group people together in areas they will object, and the government doesn't have the backbone to stand up to them. try and bring eircode down to the level of grouping houses together and we'll be another 10 years waiting for disputes and legal challenges to be dealt with

plodder

Bray Head wrote: »

Small areas are too small to be memorable.

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that they would make a useful aid for delivery.

How can it not be a useful aid for delivery if you know that Eircodes with the same prefix of 5 characters are all located very close to each other
... as compared with not having that information?

How can any structured information not be more useful than random information?

By the way, I accept the point that SA's might not always be optimal for delivery, eg in urban areas where they really are very small. Though in rural areas they tend to be larger, and that is less of an issue. But, that's really just a justification for premium services based on the paid-for databases that Eircode are selling. But, if some people are happy with the cheap and cheerful (if inferior) solution, then why stop them?

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

They would be aggregated into NSSAs and into LSAs. (Not So Small Areas and Larger Small Areas).

Sounds like it was designed by a network engineer.

clewbays

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You appear to have strong convictions of your own. You joined boards.ie in November 2014 to make posts about eircode and how good it is. You have posted 19 times. You have never posted on any other topic.

Yes Antoin I have a strong conviction that neither you nor DRI represent my interests.

I find it strange that you are objecting to my 19 postings, or one every four days on average, when you are such a prolific poster yourself as well as meeting the Department, being quoted in newspapers, posting on DRI website, and even on national radio. Is this an Animal Farm thing or are you just trying to stifle debate.

antoinolachtnai

DRI never claimed to represent you. I never objected to anything you wrote. I made an observation. You are the person who made more than an 'observation' on the things written by a professional journalist in a national newspaper. Before that post we were discussing the topic. You turned the discussion into a discussion of a newspaper and a journalist.

The Department invited DRI to meet. DRI did not contact the Department on the matter. DRI forthrightly expressed its views to the Department on a one-to-one basis. DRI did not issue any public statement on this matter. (The Department, by contrast, did decide to make a public statement with no notice given to DRI.)

Newspaper and radio journalists keep calling me and asking me about Eircode. It is not my fault. I tell them what DRI's position is. What do you think I should do?

How am I stifling debate by answering the phone to journalists and answering their questions?

I have no idea what your remarks about 'Animal Farm' are supposed to mean.

my3cents

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

DRI never claimed to represent you. I never objected to anything you wrote. I made an observation. You are the person who made more than an 'observation' on the things written by a professional journalist in a national newspaper. Before that post we were discussing the topic. You turned the discussion into a discussion of a newspaper and a journalist.

The Department invited DRI to meet. DRI did not contact the Department on the matter. DRI forthrightly expressed its views to the Department on a one-to-one basis. DRI did not issue any public statement on this matter. (The Department, by contrast, did decide to make a public statement with no notice given to DRI.)

Newspaper and radio journalists keep calling me and asking me about Eircode. It is not my fault. I tell them what DRI's position is. What do you think I should do?

How am I stifling debate by answering the phone to journalists and answering their questions?

I have no idea what your remarks about 'Animal Farm' are supposed to mean.

Lets face it if it was good news and you supported Eircode then you wouldn't be getting any calls from the press.

Thats not an attack btw just an observation on human nature.

clewbays

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

DRI never claimed to represent you.

So how did DRI develop its position on eircodes? What organisations were consulted? DRI has done some excellent work on other topics but their position on eircodes is vague. Is it as simple as DRI wanting a hierarchical code that is still unique at address level? As an NGO I think they should be representing a broad opinion based on a broad consultation process.

Regarding the Irish Examiner articles, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask why the articles are almost weekly and all written by the same journalist (in fact two articles in the last four days) and all except one positioned against eircodes.

antoinolachtnai

Regarding the Irish Examiner articles, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask why the articles are almost weekly and all written by the same journalist (in fact two articles in the last four days) and all except one positioned against eircodes.

Then it is also perfectly reasonable to ask why you joined boards.ie to post only on the topic of postcodes and why you do so at very regular intervals. Who are you and who do you represent?

clewbays wrote: »

So how did DRI develop its position on eircodes? What organisations were consulted? DRI has done some excellent work on other topics but their position on eircodes is vague. Is it as simple as DRI wanting a hierarchical code that is still unique at address level? As an NGO I think they should be representing a broad opinion based on a broad consultation process.

Thank you for your kind words. Where do you propose DRI would get the money resources to do what you are proposing? Would it really be appropriate for DRI to act as an 'umbrella' for other organizations? I think it would be more appropriate if DRI represented its own point of view, and if DRI allowed other to speak for themselves.

I do agree that consultation is important. Surely it is the Department, which has the budget, and responsibility for delivery that needs to spearhead the consultation? In fact, what happened was that the system was developed in secret, and all the fruits of the limited consultation process were ignored.

All that said, I don't see a lot of organizations lining up to say how great eircode is.

I am going to reiterate. DRI took a position on postcodes because the Department asked DRI for its view. The view is what we believe. We did not publicise our view. There would be little point in embarrassing the Department at a time when they might take steps to remedy the problems.

It was the Department that decided to go public in relation to DRI's views and the Department did so in dramatic fashion, without any reference to us. The Department made a statement that could easily be construed to mean that DRI (and the National Consumer Agency) endorsed the eircode system. This misunderstanding was apparently because of a poor choice of words by the Department rather than any intent to deceive.

Despite prompting, the Department took absolutely no steps to remedy the misunderstanding. As an organization, DRI was then left little choice but to correct the public record and state on our website that we did not endorse eircode. Since then, the National Consumer Agency has also stated publicly that it is also does not endorse eircode.

You may think that DRI's criticisms are 'vague'. Unfortunately you are correct to some degree. However, this is not because of any lack of industry on our behalf. The problem is that the whole eircode proposal is fluffy and vague. The award was made 15 months ago, the licence was written 6 months ago, and there are now just weeks to go before launch. But there is little or no documentation available on the new code. The terms of the Capita licence are a secret. The pricing is a secret. The roll-out plan is a load of hand-waving. No study has been completed into the privacy implications and no comprehensive privacy assessment work has been carried out in any form. No explanation that holds water has been put forward as to why we could not have a hierarchically structured postcode, a tried and tested solution that is used by almost every other country with a postal service.

And let me say it once more. The current publicity is not of DRI's making. This is not the way we like to do business. It is the result of the Department's action and inaction and nothing else.

JoeLeogue

clewbays wrote: »

Regarding the Irish Examiner articles, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask why the articles are almost weekly and all written by the same journalist (in fact two articles in the last four days) and all except one positioned against eircodes.

Hi clewbays.

I'm the journalist you've been referring to. I'm covering Eircodes for the Examiner at the moment (it's not unusual for a paper to have a journalist assigned to a particular topic.)

Here's the list of articles you posted.

11/10/2014 Postcodes will cost lives, warn emergency workers - This was prompted by a press release by the Irish Fire and Emergency Services Association, and was covered elsewhere.

06/11/2014 Delivery firms refuse to use new postcode system - This came from the FTAI's submission to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications, the media regularly cover Oireachtas and this was reported elsewhere.

10/11/2014 Eircode could become next Irish Water - This was an analysis piece based on the information that has come to light - the Irish Water comparison was made at the Oireachtas committee meeting. Another Eircode opinion piece was carried in another paper that day.

10/11/2014 Postcode privacy ’solutions’ promised - This came after the Data Protection Commissioner again stated its concerns about Eircode's data protection measures.

20/11/2014 Postcode system ‘world-beating’ and ‘future proof’ - again, coverage of the Oireachtas Committee that was held the day before.

06/12/2014 Freight industry’s demand on postcodes - That was reporting the FTAI's announcement that they wanted an independent analysis of Eircode.

13/12/2014 Ombudsman to receive Eircode complaint - This was the FTAI following on from their announcement the week before.

20/12/2014 Half of businesses believe Eircodes will have ‘no impact’ - this was a survey that was carried out, and was also reported elsewhere.

14/01/2015 Group warns of postcode project dangers - This was the DRI writing to the Minister to distance itself from any suggestion that it is satisfied with Eircode, following on from the submission to the Oireachtas committee.

You neglected to include another piece I wrote - Parcel group boss backs new postcode plan - December 11 2014, in which I covered the backing Eircode received from Nightline.

All the reports I have written have been based on direct quotes from named sources and in many cases were covered elsewhere. I'm open to correction, but I do not believe I have neglected to report any other public pronouncements on Eircode. The issue has also been covered by other media.

clewbays

JoeLeogue wrote: »

All the reports I have written have been based on direct quotes from named sources and in many cases were covered elsewhere.

Joe, welcome to the discussion. I highlighted your comment above because I had assumed the articles should be based on research and investigation so that Capita etc. would have been given an opportunity to provide input.

Basically I believe eircodes will greatly improve the current situation for non-unique addresses which currently do not have their right to privacy respected because service providers cannot locate them. There are comments on this by An Post at the Oireachtas meeting in mid-November.

I concur with other expressed views in relation to improved competitiveness through lower fuel costs and savings in delivery times. The unique address code should also improve policy-making - previous users have shown how small areas deliver a more targeted message from data.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

DRI took a position on postcodes because the Department asked DRI for its view. The view is what we believe. ... As an organization, DRI was then left little choice but to correct the public record and state on our website that we did not endorse eircode.

Thank you for your comments. So does that mean that DRI do not support a hierarchical code that is also unique? Personally I would prefer if the county was visible in the routing key rather than through an analysis of ECAF but I would not go below that to smaller districts.

OssianSmyth

In fairness to DRI, there is a question over data protection and Eircode which the Department of Comms has admitted but will not explain in detail. Below is an extract from the new Minister's briefing notes



In the absence of knowing either the details of the problem or the proposed solution, it's natural that questions emerge in the media.

Sam Russell

On the WeekInPolitics Alex White mentioned legislation being required for Eircode before it could go ahead. Anyone know what he was on about?

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

ukoda

yuloni wrote: »

Changes to privacy / data protection legislation? There has been some mumblings about this being needed for some time now

The rollout of a postcode, in fact the rollout of anything should not have to resort to this. It sets a bad precedent

Legislation is changed constantly for new things to be rolled out, it's not setting any precedent it's following precedents.

There's been changes to legislation to allow Infastructure projects be rolledout quicker, compulsory land purchases and compensation etc etc.

Legislation changes to keep up with the times

Nothing had been confirmed yet regarding changes that may or may not be needed, but if any changes are needed I wouldn't take it as a bad precedent, just adaptions to change

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

ukoda

yuloni wrote: »

But what kind of infrastructure projects required changes to data protection or privacy legislation... which while not officially announced, is certainly what some of us suspect is due here

The invention and adoption of the internet required a while new way of thinking of privacy and data protection, doesn't mean the Internet was a bad idea, it just meant we had to think of things differently

Cloud storage required amendments to policy on where the servers could be located

There's lots of examples

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

ukoda

yuloni wrote: »

Yes, required intervention to strengthen and protect privacy and data protection

Will this the case with eircode or will we be seeing the legislation amended to in effect weaken privacy rights and data protection laws

There's no way it will weaken them, I'd imagine they will include amendments to restrict use of the code and make specific reference to it, so I'd say it will strengthen legislation, but neither of us know yet what it will be

Sam Russell

It is great to know that the secretive roll-out of Eircode will require rushed emergency legislation that is still secret in order to allow it, just weeks ahead of the proposed roll out of Eircode.

Another Irish Water!