National Postcodes to be introduced

recedite

yuloni wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't forget designing the govt. postcode tender, and then winning it.

TheBustedFlush

recedite wrote: »

Don't forget designing the govt. postcode tender, and then winning it.

I think you'll find that PA Consulting designed/consulted on the govt postcode tender.

recedite

PA Consulting were only appointed as the project managers. It transpired afterwards that they warned against random numbers being used instead of a hiearchical code, but were overruled.

Was Alex Pigot (variously of Capita and Go-Code) not appointed in 2006 to the National Postcode Project Board, which designed the scheme on which the contract was based?

Impetus

Impetus wrote: »

Is the gocode not the eircode in a desperate re-branding attempt? Is eircode not = gocode

I don't know, well not until I get the letter that states my new postcode (eircode). I'll be looking at the four character suffix as the prefix will be (I believe) a predefined routing code with some "local" significance.

My main point is, has the same algorithm been used the generate both the Gocode and the eircode, but with a "regional" prefix replacing the gocode's generated prefix, one that appears to be the same for much of the country.

recedite

We now know, in hindsight, that the big change beween Oct 2010 when Ryan was the minister and Feb 2011 when Rabitte was in charge, was that an agreement had been signed with IMF guaranteeing that water meters and property tax would be introduced. So this had implications for Ryan's postcode version which was hierarchical, but only identified clusters of houses, so was not a unique identifier. It was good for the data protection commissioner, but not good for tax collection.
Anyone on the National Postcode Project Board would have been talking to the govt. on this and known what their real requirement was.

TheBustedFlush

recedite wrote: »

PA Consulting were only appointed as the project managers. It transpired afterwards that they warned against random numbers being used instead of a hiearchical code, but were overruled.

Was Alex Pigot (variously of Capita and Go-Code) not appointed in 2006 to the National Postcode Project Board, which designed the scheme on which the contract was based?

PA were appointed to specifically draw up the tender for the postcode contract and they ran it in tandem with the Dept. This is on the public record and in the public domain. I see nothing in that Irish Examiner report where it states that they warned against "random numbers being used instead of a hierarchical code". The article quotes them as saying their “firm recommendation that the conclusions and recommendations of The National Postcodes Project Board with regards to the format of the postcode continue to be followed”.

The Project Board you refer to was set up in 2005, and delivered a report in mid-2006. That board was then disbanded. Its findings are published on the Dept website with the recommended ABC 123 code to group buildings together under a single code. A separate project board was set up 3-4 years later which was involved in the actual tender process.

The use of a post-town prefix as the basis for the postcode has been continuously followed as recommended by PA throughout the tender process it would appear. But, I would agree they did move from grouping buildings under a single code to identifying individual addresses after lobbying/consultation/feedback from various state and private sector stakeholders, including the various location code companies and probably the govt's own requirements as you refer to above.

recedite

TheBustedFlush wrote: »

The Project Board you refer to was set up in 2005, and delivered a report in mid-2006. That board was then disbanded. Its findings are published on the Dept website with the recommended ABC 123 code to group buildings together under a single code. A separate project board was set up 3-4 years later which was involved in the actual tender process.

Ah I see, so no connection there at all. It was just a lucky co-incidence that he was able to submit a winning bid.
A bit like Denis O' Brien picking up siteserve at around the same time, using IBRC money, and getting the contract to install the water meters. Say no more.

TheBustedFlush

recedite wrote: »

Ah I see, so no connection there at all. It was just a lucky co-incidence that he was able to submit a winning bid.
A bit like Denis O' Brien picking up siteserve at around the same time, using IBRC money, and getting the contract to install the meters. Say no more.

What connection are you looking for? The IMF requirement to bring in taxes on property, water, etc was not exactly a secret - it was very public. And despite the lobbying to have a location-type code from the two companies, the Dept continued to look for a post-town design - hardly something that Go Code or Loc8 code would want since their designs did not match that. What's your conspiracy theory?

Bayberry

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know, well not until I get the letter that states my new postcode (eircode). I'll be looking at the four character suffix as the prefix will be (I believe) a predefined routing code with some "local" significance.

My main point is, has the same algorithm been used the generate both the Gocode and the eircode, but with a "regional" prefix replacing the gocode's generated prefix, one that appears to be the same for much of the country.

Gocode list their own address as 8 Maple Avenue, Blackrock, Co. Dublin and their GoCode is: L6G 56LP

I put in the address for their next door neighbour, 10 Maple Avenue, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, and gt L6G 56WL

It's clear that Gocodes are not eircodes - they aren't random, and it looks as though the geo-coordinates are encoded directly into the gocode, and there is no database lookup involved. But because the format looks like an Eircode, they would definitely cause confusion, unless every single system that used Eircodes was also set up to use Gocodes.

There's, random and there's psudoramdon, if both use the same algorithm the last four characters will match, it is unlikely that the eircode is actually reandom.

Bayberry

Deleted User wrote: »

There's, random and there's psudoramdon, if both use the same algorithm the last four characters will match, it is unlikely that the eircode is actually reandom.

Read what I wrote - 2 addresses adjacent to each other have practically the same Gocode, just a difference in the last 2 characters. Eircode is specifically designed to prevent that happening - that's the whole point of the "random" 4-character 2nd part of the eircode. Gocode isn't random at all. The only commonality between Gocode and Eircode is that they are both 7 character codes (And some of the same people are apparently involved in both).

If you change the 4th and 5th character of a Geocode, you just move a bit further away, but it's still a sequential type code - as you increment the 5th caracter, for example, you keep moving in the same direction.


I'm all in favour of a purely coordinate based postcode. But to promote a code that has exactly the same visual format as eircode, and suggest that it will "fill in the gaps" in eircode is a bit bogus - it will lead to confusion and frustration for non-technical users at best.

ozmo

Bayberry wrote: »

The only commonality between Gocode and Eircode is that they are both 7 character codes (And some of the same people are apparently involved in both).

And below from Gocodes page, reads to me anyway, like they are blaming government for the choice of a random code. Like they are saying they were only doing what they were told....

From http://www.gocode.ie/whatisagocode.aspx:
"As requested by the government, the postcode design we presented in our bid is a traditional database postcode.
Also, as was requested by the government, the database used as the base database is An Post’s GeoDirectory"

Bayberry

ozmo wrote: »

And below from Gocodes page, reads to me anyway, like they are blaming government for the choice of a random code. Like they are saying they were only doing what they were told....

The use of the Geodirectory doesn't require a random code. The use of a random code does require the use of a database, (how else do you get access to the coordinates), but you can still use a heirarchical code with a database if you want to - after all, that's what all those other "traditional database postcodes" do.

British postal codes are databased based, and the advantage that they have over a purely coordinate based system is that you can assign a postcode along an east-west street or a north-south street or even a curved street, and increment the code in the same manner along every street - a coordinate based assignment will obviously give different sequencing on east-west streets than on north-south streets. But Eircode doesn't even have that benefit - the random assignment of the 4 character "local" part of the code means that there is no sequencing at all along any street!

ozmo

Bayberry wrote: »

The use of the Geodirectory doesn't require a random code.

yes - that is true - madness we being only country in world that thinks they need to assign random numbers on houses.

I was just saying it doesn't read like they are too proud of their part in the creation of the code from those quotes from Gocodes website.. Its like they are saying they were told to do it that way... dont blame us.

"As requested by the government...

plodder

Bayberry wrote: »

Gocode list their own address as 8 Maple Avenue, Blackrock, Co. Dublin and their GoCode is: L6G 56LP

I put in the address for their next door neighbour, 10 Maple Avenue, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, and gt L6G 56WL

It's clear that Gocodes are not eircodes - they aren't random, and it looks as though the geo-coordinates are encoded directly into the gocode, and there is no database lookup involved. But because the format looks like an Eircode, they would definitely cause confusion, unless every single system that used Eircodes was also set up to use Gocodes.

Right. Gocode is a simple transformation the same as loc8 and the rest. They could be pushing themselves as a solution for navigation to points that will not have Eircodes assigned. That would only make sense if the prefixes used by this code don't clash with those used by Eircode. Does this mean they already have access to the Eircode routing keys? Interesting if true.

a65b2cd

plodder wrote: »

Right. Gocode is a simple transformation the same as loc8 and the rest. They could be pushing themselves as a solution for navigation to points that will not have Eircodes assigned. That would only make sense if the prefixes used by this code don't clash with those used by Eircode.

Eircode uses 139 postal areas and 22 of those are for Dublin City. The remaining 117 have a fixed format of Letter/Number/Number. Eircode is not customised i.e. every address will get one.

LOC8 and GoCode have a much greater number of "pre-fixes" in a more varied alpha-numeric format and they are not customised. To get one, it has to be looked-up.

If Eircodes become well established then GoCodes, LOC8 codes, OpenPostCodes etc. will probably be mainly used for non-address points. There is no reason for any confusion between these systems and 99% of persons will only be aware of and use Eircode if it is ever launched.

recedite

From 2011 onwards when the goalposts shifted again, the govt. required a complete list of every residential property in the country. This was so that they could compare it to a list of those who had paid property tax, and thereby work out who had not paid. However it was a big mistake to shoehorn this requirement into the existing postcode tender at the last minute.

So various different interests wanted different outcomes;
1) Govt. now wanted PPS numbers for all residential addresses (or letterboxes).

2) Marketing/junk mail reps on the postcode advisory board only needed postcodes to identify small clusters of houses, thereby pigeonholing the occupiers into local groups having similar interests and income.

3) Joe Public wanted a code that he could give to other people which would allow his parcel to be delivered with no fuss, and the ambulance to arrive at his house quickly. And for privacy reasons, one that could also be truncated to a shorter version which would only reveal the location of his general area, for the purposes of obtaining insurance quotes etc.

All of these requirements could have been met by registering a hierarchical location code to each address, and the govt simply making a list of them.
Such a code already existed, and was tried and tested.
Govt. could have assigned their own in-house random reference numbers and cross-referenced to occupiers names and PPS numbers on their own secure database, without creating any data protection concerns.

But instead, interest group 2 as described above came up with "eircode" (and held in reserve the patch that would inevitably be needed to fix the holes in it; "go-code".)

my3cents

recedite wrote: »

...

3) Joe Public wanted a code that he could give to other people which would allow his parcel to be delivered with no fuss, and the ambulance to arrive at his house quickly. And for privacy reasons, one that could also be truncated to a shorter version which would only reveal the location of his general area, for the purposes of obtaining insurance quotes etc.

...

No thats what you wanted, we don't know what Joe Public wants he's never been asked. Most people I know don't have a view one way or the other same way they have never heard of Geocode, Loc8 or even a grid reference number.

recedite

Well, even if you held a referendum on the issue, less than half of Joe Public would vote in it. The other half would have no opinion or don't know/don't care.
If that's the half you hang around with, fair enough.

TheBustedFlush

Many stakeholders wanted to have a unique postcode - across health, banking, logistics, retail, insurance as well as various state agencies/departments and both location code companies - Go Code and Loc8.

Delivery companies/ Marketing/direct mail companies/insurance companies/property valuers, etc want a grouping feature within the code to make it easier for them to sort/group houses together for their own business' purposes. As you say - "thereby pigeonholing the occupiers into local groups having similar interests and income, " is a fair assessment of this kind of grouping, which is why it's likely it was not used.

The general public was not asked about type of postcode - they're just going to get one in the post and promptly forget about it until they need to use it for something.

At the time of the tender being issued in early 2011, there were two location code type systems available - neither of which had been tried and tested. They had an opportunity to tender for the national system which wanted a post town prefix on every code. One of them did tender, one of them didn't. The one that did couldn't be used for addresses because it didn't have a postal prefix, so it looks like it will provide a free service to pinpoint other types of locations besides addresses - what's the problem? What's to stop Loc8 providing a similar free service?

Bayberry

TheBustedFlush wrote: »

Marketing/direct mail companies/insurance companies/property valuers, etc want a grouping feature within the code to make it easier for them to sort/group houses together for their own business' purposes. As you say - "thereby pigeonholing the occupiers into local groups having similar interests and income, " is a fair assessment of this kind of grouping, which is why it's likely it was not used.

There isn't a Marketing/direct mail/insurance company in Europe that isn't using computers to manage their listings, and they can do a lookup against the eircode database to assign any address to whatever notional zones they want to create - the "random" nature of eircodes offers exactly zero protection against this supposed "problem" with a hierarchical code.

The arguement is that it'll stop the casual discrimination against people based on their addresses being in Ballymun rather than Glasnevin, or make a difference to house prices because the house is in Terenure rather than Walkinstown, and people would recognize a Walkinstown eircode, but that's just stupid, because the "Terenure" part of the address will still be used, and you'll still get that type of location discrimination.

TheBustedFlush

Bayberry wrote: »

There isn't a Marketing/direct mail/insurance company in Europe that isn't using computers to manage their listings, and they can do a lookup against the eircode database to assign any address to whatever notional zones they want to create - the "random" nature of eircodes offers exactly zero protection against this supposed "problem" with a hierarchical code.

Very true - the companies can build their own groupings from the unique code for every address/letterbox/customer. I suppose the point is that they're not being provided with a lazy way of doing it using a one-area-suits-all approach.

Bayberry

TheBustedFlush wrote: »

Very true - the companies can build their own groupings from the unique code for every address/letterbox/customer. I suppose the point is that they're not being provided with a lazy way of doing it using a one-area-suits-all approach.

Lazy?

Really, does anyone have any actual evidence that the direct mail/marketing sector had any input at all into the whole eircode issue? Their only concerns are that Privacy regulation not impact on them too much (which is why Germany complains in public about the "light touch regulation" of Internet companies like Facebook and Gogle by the rish DPC, but lobbies behind closed doors on behalf of it's large publishing and marketing interests to weaken privacy regulation in trade negotiations, but that's another thread altgether!).

TheBustedFlush

Bayberry wrote: »

Lazy?

Really, does anyone have any actual evidence that the direct mail/marketing sector had any input at all into the whole eircode issue?

Input into what issue specifically?

Bayberry

TheBustedFlush wrote: »

Input into what issue specifically?

Sorry, I meant is there any evidence that anyone in the marketing/direct mail sector expressed a preference for any particular features to be included in a postcode design. All direct mail is database driven anyway, so they won't be impacted one way or another by the design of eircode - looking up the eircode of everyone within 500m of a particular business and printing their name and address on a flyer doesn't require a hierarchical postal code, it just needs a computer and a database.

From what I can see, the only concern that the direct marketing segment would have about eircode is that it is so specific that there will be regulations put in place that will prevent them from collecting eircodes from the public in the first place - so a restaurant for example, won't be able to ask people for their eircode if it wants to decide where to open a new branch. Some people argue that this is a good thing, and that this makes the "random" part of eircode a feature rather than a bug, but I'm not really convinced that that's a good enough justification for breaking so many other features of a postcode.

(I have lived in the US, and it always annoyed me to be asked for my ZIP code when I bought batteries in Radio Shack, so I understand the antipathy. I'm definiteky not convinced that random eircodes is a good fix for that, though!)

Trouwe Ier

Bayberry wrote: »

.....(I have lived in the US, and it always annoyed me to be asked for my ZIP code when I bought batteries in Radio Shack, so I understand the antipathy. I'm definiteky not convinced that random eircodes is a good fix for that, though!)

You can be sure that marketing companies and retailers etc will try every (legal) trick in the book to collate customer behaviour patterns.

I had a look at the "Go Code" website. I like the fact that there is full use of alpha numeric combinations for the routing key / inward segment e.g. North Donegal starts with "1" and East Limerick with "P" but apart from the capability to assign a code to any location I don't see the point of this "philanthropy" otherwise.

I had another thought too. With only 139 postal areas, nine numbers and fifteen letters in use, they nearly could have used just one letter and one number for each routing key e.g. "F7", "V4" etc but 135 possible combinations are just too few. Furthermore, given that most Dublin Postal Districts have two digits, the need for spare capacity etc., they've missed out. Five digit Eircodes would have been in keeping with the "Keep It Simple Stupid" philosophy. Still, however, outside of Dublin there are up to fourteen letters available for one hundred and seventeen districts.

(and yes, I am aware of the "reintegration of the national territory" consideration)

(and yes, I am aware of the "reintegration of the national territory" consideration)

That appears to have already been ignored by the creation of a completely incompatible postcode system.

TheBustedFlush

Bayberry wrote: »

Sorry, I meant is there any evidence that anyone in the marketing/direct mail sector expressed a preference for any particular features to be included in a postcode design. All direct mail is database driven anyway, so they won't be impacted one way or another by the design of eircode - looking up the eircode of everyone within 500m of a particular business and printing their name and address on a flyer doesn't require a hierarchical postal code, it just needs a computer and a database.

From what I can see, the only concern that the direct marketing segment would have about eircode is that it is so specific that there will be regulations put in place that will prevent them from collecting eircodes from the public in the first place - so a restaurant for example, won't be able to ask people for their eircode if it wants to decide where to open a new branch. Some people argue that this is a good thing, and that this makes the "random" part of eircode a feature rather than a bug, but I'm not really convinced that that's a good enough justification for breaking so many other features of a postcode.

(I have lived in the US, and it always annoyed me to be asked for my ZIP code when I bought batteries in Radio Shack, so I understand the antipathy. I'm definiteky not convinced that random eircodes is a good fix for that, though!)

Good observations. I've no idea if they had any input or comment to make before, during or after. Grouping of addresses is still useful to them, but the more accurate you can be about that, the better I would reckon. The Eircode database is going to be a useful starting point as the bible of all addresses. However, other, more rich databases will likely be created using some of its information e.g. LBS. For me, the more of these codes that are out there the better for a business I'm developing. Eircode, Go Code and Loc8 Code will all be useful to incorporate into it if people are using them regularly - and they're free to use which is even better.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

That appears to have already been ignored by the creation of a completely incompatible postcode system.

You think we should have gone with a Royal Mail-compatible postcode just in case the border goes away at some indeterminate point in the future?

Jaysus.

dr.fuzzenstein

recedite wrote: »

Well, even if you held a referendum on the issue, less than half of Joe Public would vote in it. The other half would have no opinion or don't know/don't care.
If that's the half you hang around with, fair enough.

Well, I'm Joe Public. All I want is a potscode that means a letter or parcel will be delivered to my house. I don't want or need a referendum on it, in about as much as I don't want or need a referendum on toilet paper. I just know that like TP, postcodes are needed.
I don't care who designed it, I don't care if my junkmail now has an Eircode on it (sorry, that's idiotic, junkmail doesn't HAVE an address, it just gets stuffed through every letterbox. Eircodes won't make a blind bit of difference ot that).
I don't care how the contract was awarded, I don't think that ISIS will use the Eircode system to overrun our country, I'm not worried about my privacy, because if you think a postcode threatens your privacy but owning a smartphone or posting "anonymously" (what a laugh) on the internet will not. The fact it points directly at buildings is great, if you live in town, no difference, if you live in the countryside, great, unless you have something to hide, like dodgy planning permission, dodgy welfare claims, dodging property tax or TV license or you just like to stay off the radar, for, ahem, "reasons".