Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
National Postcodes to be introduced
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
I don’t understand how you got that from my posts, and to be frank it is a pretty blatant strawman.oscarBravo wrote: »You're continuing to argue as if a postal code based on an algorithmic geocode would be the perfect answer to all the criticisms levelled against Eircode…..
Let me backup on the train of thought. Calina referenced my posts highlighting problems with Eircode as it pertains to logistics distribution. You brushed this off as being an ‘edge case’. I responded that when you strip out a huge chunk of functionality, as was done by discarding a geocode-based design, you in turn create more of those sorts of edge cases.
If person A presents a (fairly) decent argument and person B says something moronic, then does it really make sense to use person B as a stick to beat person A with? It shouldn’t, but that’s just what you’ve done here.
????But that's just not true. Look at some of the other criticisms on this thread alone: the code should have been based on small areas - impossible with an algorithmic geocode. The code should be based on more granular post towns - impossible with an algorithmic geocode.
For the first is, say, 5mx5m area not small enough?? For the second, the only reason that criticism arose (afaiui) is because the routing key is the only part of Eircode that contains geographical information and is clearly not granular enough to be much use, a criticism that wouldn’t arise if the whole code was geographical information (as it would be in a geocode).
In some cases this may be true, but there are plenty of examples where it isn’t true. The interoperability with Google Maps is a great example of where it would have been better for a sizeable portion of the population.When people make the argument that it could have been better, they're basically saying that it could have been better for them.
I haven’t seen anyone raise an insurmountable problem with geocodes and what Eircode delivered btw…..No, it means that you can't successfully address conflicting requirements.
But let me get to the biggest problem in your post: “I'll make a point yet again: it is logically impossible to have a code that would address every criticism that has been levelled against Eircodes, while also meeting all the design criteria.”
My contention is that the geocode functionality, the benefits of which were discussed in depth in the submissions, should never have been stripped out. I have little intention of defending every criticism made against Eircode (I don’t agree with all of them so why would I attempt defending them????), and have focused solely on those that A) made sense to me and
were reasonably avoidable. It does have to be said that the geocode functionality, and the interoperability it would have brought, seems like it would have solved a sizeable stack of those criticisms. 0 -
That’s still not an apples to apples comparison…..
When you say ‘postcode’ you mean ‘postcode with crippled functionality’.
If you want to argue that the functionality I have been championing, the functionality we were lead to believe the national postcode would have, the functionality that featured heavily in the submissions during the consultation period, etc., had to be dispensed with then let’s have that argument. I don’t see any sensible reason (and I’ve explained in depth previously why not) why that functionality was dispensed.
Unless you are going to try arguing that the functionality needed to be dispense with, then I don’t see how referring to ‘its most recent iteration’ addresses anything I’ve said.
In the present case brevity doesn’t make the point needed. That material shows just how out-of-kilter the “most recent iteration” was with the recommendations and submissions. What was the point of soliciting expertise if the intention was to utterly ignore it???
Except that, as I have repeated previously, on this there was public consultation but it was utterly ignored. Instances where there is no public consultation are problematic, but what of situations where the public consultation is seemingly just for show and there was never any intention of taking it on board?
I remember, I think it was Patrica Cronin, echoing the department’s press release during one of the committee hearings by saying “The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources said it had consulted widely with stakeholders, including An Post and commercial delivery companies, to ensure that the national postcode system would effectively meet consumer and business needs.” The problem is that if you compare every submission made by those in the logistics industry with Eircode you’d see what a waste of time that consultation was. Telling everyone you engaging significantly with the stateholders is a great way to sell a bill of goods, so long as nobody realises that ‘engaged’ also includes ‘ignored’.
I’ll come out and say it – the decision to divorce the code from a geocode was utterly wrong.
I already explained how this was solvable in this very thread……
Only if you designed it like a moron. Introduce a z-axis into the geocode with non-zero Z values reserved for database validation. People can generate as many codes as they like, but only the non-zero z-axis values would be the official code for the property.
Easy to state, less easy to follow through on.
Wanting to keep the functionality and interoperability that comes with a geocode, which was discussed in depth in many of the submissions, is totally like waiting for perfection…..
Which is why Eircode devised error correction mechanisms in the code to detect single digit errors. Oh wait, they didn’t. The technology for developing such codes is nearly two decades old now, so what’s the excuse for not using it given it solves the above problem easily and would have preserved all the functionality of a geocode?
She.
Her.
While you can try arguing that my situation is an ‘edge case’, the only reason it is a problem is because a geocode was dispensed with. How many other such ‘edge cases’ arise because of that? There are a few local festivals that are held yearly, and they tend to be in different locations depending on the weather and the quality of the available fields. Every time when they’re in a different location it is a fecking disaster for people trying to find them. The attendees on festival day are generally fine, they are signposts and volunteers out the roads so they’re grand – the problem is the people taking in the supplies needed to set the thing up in the days beforehand. Every year, without fail, some poor farmer with their stock or machinery or whatever gets lost and can’t a signal on the phone. I know that one of the organisers and he was disappointed that Eircode won’t be of any help. It’s another ‘edge case’, but one that wouldn’t be a problem had Eircode gone geocode.
Another thing that needs highlighting is that, had Eircode been geocode-based, then combining it with software (like Excel) would be trivial. This very point about interoperability was made repeatedly in the submissions. The thing is that you can always single out each problem as being an ‘edge case’, but these problem ‘edge cases’ all arise from the same design mistake.
I’m picturing the scenario now. Telling the farmers they need to have numbering on their fields, and have it displayed at each gap. I’m going to have troll someone with that one.
Aside from address validation, which imo should be a non-issue since I’m assuming someone who wants goods delivered won’t lie about their address, why can’t you do these without a device? People were able to plan deliveries before computers became commonplace you know.
Had Eircode been geocode based you’d never have this issue since it would be an algorithmic conversion as far as SatNavs are concerned.
Light-hearted and succint as ever! :P Eircodes give otherwise non-unique addresses in rural Ireland a unique identification code, and allow people to navigate to these addresses. Which is an advance on pretty much any other postcode that exists in any other country. Looking forward to your pithy, witty reply...
0 -
marmurr1916 wrote: »Light-hearted and succint as ever! :P Eircodes give otherwise non-unique addresses in rural Ireland a unique identification code, and allow people to navigate to these addresses. Which is an advance on pretty much any other postcode that exists in any other country. Looking forward to your pithy, witty reply...
Is that the only saving grace of Eircodes. The Revenue already had that for their LPT gathering exercise. Why did we not use that code?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement