National Postcodes to be introduced

oscarBravo

Carawaystick wrote: »

Maybe some proponent of eircodes could explain how using eircodes instead of implementing an addressing scheme would solve this issue

Say a person, maybe even Sean Other upthread, wants to develop some land. but the land is undeveloped and has no postcode, so some other method of locating the land must be used.

You seem to be operating off the premise that, without implementing either unique addressing or unique postcodes, it's impossible to find anything.

It's a bit trite to come up with an edge case that eircodes don't cover - hell, I could come up with several myself - and to conclude that we have no choice but to implement unique addressing, despite the fact that it would be much harder to do and encounter much stronger resistance.

And even then, most of my edge cases still apply - does that mean that unique addresses are a bad idea and shouldn't be implemented? Or are my edge cases less important than your edge cases?

plodder

spacetweek wrote: »

There was something about how you shouldn't have adjacent buildings with sequential codes because direct marketers could guess your code if they knew someone else's.

That doesn't make sense. As it is, direct marketers can guess your address if they know someone elses.

Carawaystick

My point is that Eircodes *only* locate postal destinations.
There are many ways to locate locations, and if we are to change to use a database look-up scheme, then a system with all locations should have been used.
Or if we are to implement a code, why not re-use the existing mapping and folio scheme the pra use.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

UK postcodes are free. Eircodes will be useless without the database due to the randomness. So, it's not unfair to conclude that it's about money - unless you can suggest a better reason.

They are free in the same way Eircode is free, the public can use it and you can look them up online.

Eircode is monitised in the exact same way the UK post code is:

Eircode: you pay for access to the ECAD
UK postcode: you pay for access to the PAF

It's the EXACT same revenue model. The EXACT same.

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

They are free in the same way Eircode is free, the public can use it and you can look them up online.

Eircode is monitised in the exact same way the UK post code is:

Eircode: you pay for access to the ECAD
UK postcode: you pay for access to the PAF

It's the EXACT same revenue model. The EXACT same.

No, it's not. The entire database of UK Postcodes to geographical co-ordinates is free. That means application developers and satnav vendors can use it for free. The closest equivalent here is the ECAD which is NOT free. In fact, none of the Eircode products is free. End users being able to lookup a few addresses on the web is a different thing.

antoinolachtnai

In GB, you can get a database of postcodes for free. This will let you take a postcode and get its approximate location.

The free product is here: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/products/code-point-open.html

The revenue model is very different as a result.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

No, it's not. The entire database of UK Postcodes to geographical co-ordinates is free. That means application developers and satnav vendors can use it for free. The closest equivalent here is the ECAD which is NOT free. In fact, none of the Eircode products is free. End users being able to lookup a few addresses on the web is a different thing.

Ok so tell me then. If the UK postcode is free in the way you think it is free. Then why does Royal Mail have a paid for PAF file? The UK post is NOT free in the way you think it is. No matter how many words you put in bold. The equivalent of the ECAD is the PAF and neither are free.

The UK has decided to allow access for free in certain circumstances. But it is still a revenue generating product in the same way Eircode will be.

This arguement came from a user saying the postcode had to be random in order to generate income. That's total bull. My responses are designed to show that as bull. By saying the UK are not random. Yet they operate a revenue generating model. Your attempt to keep using the word free for the UK postcode is misleading.

PAF operates on a per user and per transaction revenue mode in the same way the ECAD does.

The only part of the UK postcode that is free is the "out code" which is a very broad area.

seamus

Late to this party, but would it be cynical of me to think that because the technical details of how this works are obscured that there'll be no open way to access the data except by paying eircode an extortionate amount of cash?

That is, if I run just-eat.ie and I want to validate post codes and addresses, I'll probably have to pay for access to the eircode database rather than have it open and easily accessible. You know, like a public resource should be?

ukoda

seamus wrote: »

Late to this party, but would it be cynical of me to think that because the technical details of how this works are obscured that there'll be no open way to access the data except by paying eircode an extortionate amount of cash?

That is, if I run just-eat.ie and I want to validate post codes and addresses, I'll probably have to pay for access to the eircode database rather than have it open and easily accessible. You know, like a public resource should be?

It's 3k a year to validate addresses on a website. So just eat would have to pay that fee. Not a lot of money for them. And a full product guide is available so you can't call the workings of it "obscure"

antoinolachtnai

The €3k product doesn't give you coordinates though, does it? You need a more expensive product for that, I think.

ukoda

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The €3k product doesn't give you coordinates though, does it? You need a more expensive product for that, I think.

His example didn't ask for coordinates. He asked about validating addresses on a website. So I gave him that price.

The prices are published so you work out what product you want if you need cooridantes

antoinolachtnai

In GB just-eat gets the coordinates for free. Most likely, this is all they need.

ukoda

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

In GB just-eat gets the coordinates for free. Most likely, this is all they need.

No I'd say they are more interested in address validation: I.e. Enter a postcode and get a list of addresses back to pick from. This is not free. This requires a licence to use the PAF from Royal Mail.

They don't need the coordinates. Once they know they have the right address they give it to the driver and he can just enter on his sat nav or smart phone for free.

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

Ok so tell me then. If the UK postcode is free in the way you think it is free. Then why does Royal Mail have a paid for PAF file? The UK post is NOT free in the way you think it is. No matter how many words you put in bold. The equivalent of the ECAD is the PAF and neither are free.

The UK has decided to allow access for free in certain circumstances. But it is still a revenue generating product in the same way Eircode will be.

This arguement came from a user saying the postcode had to be random in order to generate income. That's total bull. My responses are designed to show that as bull. By saying the UK are not random. Yet they operate a revenue generating model. Your attempt to keep using the word free for the UK postcode is misleading.

PAF operates on a per user and per transaction revenue mode in the same way the ECAD does.

The only part of the UK postcode that is free is the "out code" which is a very broad area.

Your responses show you don't know what you are talking about.

Don't take my word for it. Follow the link from the other poster. UK postcodes are free to use. They don't include a full address database, which is what the PAF is (and they charge for that).

The random structure of Eircode appears to be designed to force users to license one of the commercial products as there is no equivalent to the UK's free product.

antoinolachtnai

ukoda wrote: »

The only part of the UK postcode that is free is the "out code" which is a very broad area.

This is untrue. The 'inward code' as it is called, is free, under the terms of the Code Point Open product, described here.

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/products/code-point-open.html

You really need the coordinates to cluster the deliveries which are close together. This is ideally done centrally, not by the drivers as they go out.

Address validation is great, but it isn't really necessary for many applications.

seamus

ukoda wrote: »

It's 3k a year to validate addresses on a website. So just eat would have to pay that fee. Not a lot of money for them. And a full product guide is available so you can't call the workings of it "obscure"

Will you link that product guide for me?

It's not really relevant that €3k a year isn't much for a specific site.

It's a lot for individuals or small businesses. If I wanted to develop a small app that allowed for someone to look up and Eircode and get directions to it on their phone, you're basically saying I'll have to pay a lot of money for access to a database which has been funded by taxation and has no real reason to be closed.

At the very least address validation should be completely free as small businesses will still be required to take the codes but will not have any affordable way to validate them.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

Your responses show you don't know what you are talking about.

Don't take my word for it. Follow the link from the other poster. UK postcodes are free to use. They don't include a full address database, which is what the PAF is (and they charge for that).

The random structure of Eircode appears to be designed to force users to license one of the commercial products as there is no equivalent to the UK's free product.

I Know exactly what I'm talking about. And my previous post about 'just eat' points out exactly how it isn't as "free" as you keep trying to have us believe.

ukoda

seamus wrote: »

Will you link that product guide for me?

It's not really relevant that €3k a year isn't much for a specific site.

It's a lot for individuals or small businesses. If I wanted to develop a small app that allowed for someone to look up and Eircode and get directions to it on their phone, you're basically saying I'll have to pay a lot of money for access to a database which has been funded by taxation and has no real reason to be closed.

At the very least address validation should be completely free as small businesses will still be required to take the codes but will not have any affordable way to validate them.

Well we don't know yet what you'll have to pay as an app developer. I asked Eircode this question and I was told they are working with navigation companies but they have no published prices or list of products they are offering them. So time will tell.

It's on the Eircode website I think
www.eircode.ie

ukoda

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

This is untrue. The 'inward code' as it is called, is free, under the terms of the Code Point Open product, described here.

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/products/code-point-open.html

You really need the coordinates to cluster the deliveries which are close together. This is ideally done centrally, not by the drivers as they go out.

Address validation is great, but it isn't really necessary for many applications.

If you wanted to get cooridantes for your delivery destinations then you are into paying Royal Mail for the PAF, otherwise all you'd have is:

Your deliveries are somewhere in
BT1 2AB
AD1 3AV

Etc etc. which means nothing to a driver

You need address validation to get the full address and you need actual house geos if your going to do route planning. So just eat are no better off in the UK than they are in Ireland. They are paying for the same thing in both countries.

The only thing really the free bit of the UK code is good for is "is there a Chinese near me" type app, and again. We have no prices from eircode for this kind of app development use of the Eircode.

antoinolachtnai

Presumably the customer will also type in their address and this can be passed to the driver?

You can certainly cluster deliveries that are close together without full-blown route planning.

ukoda

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Presumably the customer will also type in their address and this can be passed to the driver?

You can certainly cluster deliveries that are close together without full-blown route planning.

Depends, if you visit dominos website they use validation for both Ireland (you type in a bit of the address and it brings you back the offical list using geo directory) and the UK (you type your postcode and they bring you back a list of addresses to choose from)

They obviously see value in paying for this (and yes this is a paid service to the postcode operator in the UK and the geo directory operated in Ireland)

So like I say, claiming the UK one is "free" is kinda misleading, it's free for certain uses with limited usefulness. Companies in the UK are obviously opting to use the paid version as it's the one that's actually useful.

This whole discussion came from someone claiming the reason the Eircode was randomised was to generate revenue, it's pretty obvious that even a non randomised code generates revenue, with companies opting to use the paid version.

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

Depends, if you visit dominos website they use validation for both Ireland (you type in a bit of the address and it brings you back the offical list using geo directory) and the UK (you type your postcode and they bring you back a list of addresses to choose from)

They obviously see value in paying for this (and yes this is a paid service to the postcode operator in the UK and the geo directory operated in Ireland)

So like I say, claiming the UK one is "free" is kinda misleading, it's free for certain uses with limited usefulness. Companies in the UK are obviously opting to use the paid version as it's the one that's actually useful.

This whole discussion came from someone claiming the reason the Eircode was randomised was to generate revenue, it's pretty obvious that even a non randomised code generates revenue, with companies opting to use the paid version.

Leaving the digression aside, this still doesn't explain or justify why a randomised code is required for Eircode and in particular it doesn't refute the argument that it was designed that way to generate revenue. You might as well have made the point that installing water meters is going to generate revenue and that has nothing to do with randomised postcodes either. It's about as relevant to this discussion.

More importantly. Eircode could have been (and still can be) designed to use a second level of hierarchy. So, a free product exactly equivalent to the UK free product could be released with the geo-coordinates of all the small areas (rather than individual properties)

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

Leaving the digression aside, this still doesn't explain or justify why a randomised code is required for Eircode and in particular it doesn't refute the argument that it was designed that way to generate revenue. You might as well have made the point that installing water meters is going to generate revenue and that has nothing to do with randomised postcodes either. It's about as relevant to this discussion.

More importantly. Eircode could have been (and still can be) designed to use a second level of hierarchy. So, a free product exactly equivalent to the UK free product could be released with the geo-coordinates of all the small areas (rather than individual properties)

The official response from eircode when asked publicly about "why random":

Stops postcode discrimination (ghettos)

Allows new codes to be added easily for say a house built between 2 other houses. Having a random code means you don't have to reassign new postcodes to all the other houses on the street (which you'd have to do with sequential)

That's their take on it, pros and cons of both ways

irishgeo

i cant wait for this launch so we can put to end the arguments about it.

the post code is not mandatory so if dont want to use it dont.

your never going to get standard addressing in.

a65b2cd

irishgeo wrote: »

i cant wait for this launch so we can put to end the arguments about it.

7 weeks left to dissemination and then we can move from it will never happen to it will never last

GJG

plodder wrote: »

It's not the act of publishing someone's Eircode or address that is the problem. It would be publishing the Eircode with some other piece of information.

For example, if it emerges that two people residing at W12 8QT in the UK voted for UKIP in the next election, it wouldn't reveal very much. But, if it emerges that two people from D04 XP21 (in Ireland) voted for Fianna Fail, then you know exactly who it was.

That's not the same thing as saying 'there is no privacy issue' and the previous DP commissioner was a lot more leery about it.

Two points: How could that information - a postcode and the votes in that house - possibly get associated? There is no mechanism, and none is proposed, to do that. It would require a separate ballot box for each house in the country, hardly likely and certainly something that would not go unnoticed.

And if for some mad reason, separate ballot boxes for each house actually happened, there would be no problem in associating votes with individual houses where unique addresses exist (60 per cent of the total), even without a unique postcode. Should the 60 per cent hammer the number plates off their houses, just in case?

Secondly, there existed a system, and I think it still exists, in the UK whereby all ballot papers have a unique number on them, and that number is related to the name and address of the voter on the register of electors. They are not supposed to be cross-matched except in the case of voter fraud, but the potential for abuse is massive, no need for Eircode.

So, when you invent wildly implausible problems for Eircode, and ignore problems that exist independent of it, it doesn't give you much credibility.

murpho999

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I can tell you exactly why some people object.

Person A (who doesn't object):

Sean Example
32 Banana Road
Murphtown
Co Clare

He can be readily found. If we now stick 23456 in his address, he can still be readily found.
Then there's this gentleman:

Sean Other
The Shticks
Inch
Co. Clare

His address is vague enough that when it comes to bills for water, tv license, inspectors checking into various dodgy welfare claims and maybe a less than stringent approach to planning laws, it's obscure enough that he can dodge his way through life.
It's called living off the grid (and not just electrical), the principle is to have nothing about yourself and your house on any documents and databases, be they with official state bodies or private companies.
This will facilitate all sorts of fcuk-aboutery and not just confined to dodging bills.
Suddenly now there is the prospect of his address having 23456 in it, and suddenly any idiot with a smart phone or sat nav can find him. So now when it comes to all his little dodges, there is no way out, no excuses and no getting round it.
THAT'S the privacy concern!

So you're complaining about post codes exposing people who are living illegally. Seriously.

Anyhow, the postcode is not associated with a name and also if someone wants to find a property without a postcode it will be done.

The complaint is bogus.

GJG

murpho999 wrote: »

So you're complaining about post codes exposing people who are living illegally. Seriously.

Anyhow, the postcode is not associated with a name and also if someone wants to find a property without a postcode it will be done.

The complaint is bogus.

Yes, actually. Insurance fraud is made much easier in this country because varying versions of a home address relate to the same house, but look different to a computer system. I managed to get letters delivered with 20 different versions of my address, using different combinations of Irish, English and locality names. There would be no problem to insuring the house 20 times and making 20 claims for a loss.

When Mary Harney was employment minister, she ordered a study to find out why people were still signing on when there was so many jobs available. They took a random sample of claims and discovered that, in one case in 10, the address given didn't exist. That's not to say that the person wasn't living there, that is that the there wasn't there.

There are many scams that become systemically impossible as soon as every residence can be uniquely identified - they don't have to be detected or even prevented, they just can't happen.

There is a further layer of scams that become instantly detectable once dwellings can be uniquely identified. I can't imagine that anyone will be payed rent allowance this time next year without giving the Eircode of their home. It then becomes a trivial task to interrogate the database to find double-claims.

Similarly, cross-reference dole claims with the published register of rented properties, which includes number of bedrooms in a property. Divide the number of claims by the number of bedrooms and tell your inspectors to start with the one-bedroom flats with 10 active claims, and work their way down the list.

People claiming CGT exemption when selling what they claim is their primary residence can immediately have that verified.

All of these scams, and many more, are a drag on the economy, and this is a cheap way to eliminate them. That will mean more money in your pocket

Sam Russell

GJG wrote: »

Yes, actually. Insurance fraud is made much easier in this country because varying versions of a home address relate to the same house, but look different to a computer system. I managed to get letters delivered with 20 different versions of my address, using different combinations of Irish, English and locality names. There would be no problem to insuring the house 20 times and making 20 claims for a loss.

When Mary Harney was employment minister, she ordered a study to find out why people were still signing on when there was so many jobs available. They took a random sample of claims and discovered that, in one case in 10, the address given didn't exist. That's not to say that the person wasn't living there, that is that the there wasn't there.

There are many scams that become systemically impossible as soon as every residence can be uniquely identified - they don't have to be detected or even prevented, they just can't happen.

There is a further layer of scams that become instantly detectable once dwellings can be uniquely identified. I can't imagine that anyone will be payed rent allowance this time next year without giving the Eircode of their home. It then becomes a trivial task to interrogate the database to find double-claims.

Similarly, cross-reference dole claims with the published register of rented properties, which includes number of bedrooms in a property. Divide the number of claims by the number of bedrooms and tell your inspectors to start with the one-bedroom flats with 10 active claims, and work their way down the list.

People claiming CGT exemption when selling what they claim is their primary residence can immediately have that verified.

All of these scams, and many more, are a drag on the economy, and this is a cheap way to eliminate them. That will mean more money in your pocket

I agree with this approach, and if it is so cost effective, why charge for the use of Eircode?

By the way, this would apply to any post code system that applied unique code to individual addresses, even a system without random codes and ones that were hierarchical.

Another problem that will be eliminated is the use of non-unique addresses for company names. I had a person call to my door (in a non-unique address area) looking for Anyoldname Ltd, Roundthecorner, Ballyhere, Co Slogone to serve legal papers. It could have been anywhere among 30 houses, and the address could have been fake. No clue as to who owned the company or who was due the pleasure of having bulky reading matter. That will be another benefit.

ukoda

Sam Russell wrote: »

I agree with this approach, and if it is so cost effective, why charge for the use of Eircode?

Well you can't design, implement and maintain a postcode for free, I think it's better to retail it out to commercial orgs, who in turn get a return on their investment, rather than it being paid solely with tax payer money.