National Postcodes to be introduced

Bray Head

Aimead wrote: »

Loc8 and OpenPostCode do. I’m not mentioning that to promote them, just showing that working examples that provide this already exist and work well for the purpose.

They are not postcodes. They are point-level geocodes. A postcode is inevitably linked to a database. A geocode doesn't have to be.

You could in theory tied geocodes to a database. The decision was taken not do do this with eircode. Good reasons for not doing so have been set out on this thread.

In any case facilitating deliveries to places which aren't letterboxes is a niche activity. Fraud prevention is not. It's something that DSP, Revenue, your bank, your insurance company and your utilities engage in and ultimately saves you money. Eircode will greatly assist this process. A postcode system where some systems are on the database and some user-generated would arguably have made fraud even easier than it is now.

My own feeling (and I'm open to evidence from people with direct experience) is that eircode will make some difference to those in the delivery business, but a big difference to those in the utility business and government.

oscarBravo

Aimead wrote: »

My contention is that the geocode functionality, the benefits of which were discussed in depth in the submissions, should never have been stripped out.

Of course that's your contention. You have a use case for which geocodes are a better fit, and the disadvantages of a geocode don't concern you. If we were designing a postcode system around your personal requirements, we would have a geocode now.

But yours are not the only requirements, and it's far too easy to downplay the disadvantages of a geocode just because they don't particularly bother you personally.

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.

The bottom line is this: not everyone wanted a geocode, and had we ended up with a geocode, we would simply have a different set of people just as unhappy as you currently are.

A key point is that one of those unhappy parties would have been An Post. I know, I know: there are plenty of people who seem to believe that pissing off An Post should have been a design goal of any postcode system to start with, but I think it would have been peculiarly Irish to designate a company as the universal service provider for postal delivery and then deliberately thwart them with a postcode system they would refuse to implement, but maybe that's just me.

Aimead

Bray Head wrote: »

You could in theory tied geocodes to a database. The decision was taken not do do this with eircode. Good reasons for not doing so have been set out on this thread.

Care to share those ‘good reasons’? I’m pretty sure I’ve answered (or rather ‘debunked’) everything pretty thoroughly so far. What did I miss?

A postcode system where some systems are on the database and some user-generated would arguably have made fraud even easier than it is now.

Care to explain how? If only official codes are in the database then how does what a user generate themselves help facilitate fraud? Unless a user is hacking the database (which would apply equally to the current Eircode system) then how can a user edit the official code for their property?

Is this one of those ‘good reasons’ you referred to above (that doesn’t withstand a moment’s scrutiny)? I know this will come across as snarky, but you to realise that this very point has already been addressed in depth in my previous posts – hence the frustration.

plodder

Not to labour the point OscarBravo. What you say is often true and it is nearly always the case that disgruntled individuals will highlight the requirements they favour but which were ignored. The answer to that always is to point to a specification or a document that outlines the rationale for why things were chosen the way they were.

Where is this document for Eircode? If such a document doesn't exist, then there is no guarantee that the design decisions were correct. As I said before, the risk is that the contractor will design it in a way that minimises the amount of work/hassle for them, and maximises their income. Also, that the state (civil service) driving the project will only highlight the requirements they know about (eg fraud prevention, unique property ids etc) and exclude requirements that they simply are unfamiliar with

Such a document would address the following points (among others):
- random code versus structured code
- points versus areas
- unique identifiers versus anonymised areas.
- geocode or not a geocode

There is a document that was never published, and it's no wonder because the rationale for some of the decisions was frankly bizarre.

@Aimead. What I meant by public consultation was literally consulting with the public, not just selected people from the private sector. Input from the public should have been solicited as happens with many other projects (eg roads, public transport)

Bray Head

Aimead wrote: »

Care to share those ‘good reasons’? I’m pretty sure I’ve answered (or rather ‘debunked’) everything pretty thoroughly so far. What did I miss?

No. Like I said, the different views have been well aired. Having read them all I take a view that is opposite to yours. People do not always agree on the internet.:)

Aimead

oscarBravo wrote: »

You have a use case for which geocodes are a better fit, and the disadvantages of a geocode don't concern you.

Which disadvantages are insurmountable? What difficulties have I not addressed?

And you’re still making the same mistake. You can always label any individual proposed use as an edge case, but if you read through the submissions made you’d see that a geocode was proposed because it provides for a huge array of functionality – it meets these ‘edge cases’. Btw another ‘edge case’, which was supposed to be aided by the proposed postcode (read the docs), is the ambulance service. When you consider that a sizeable stack of accidents aren’t at the family home (which has an Eircode) you can see the problem – a geocode would have solved this.

The bottom line is this: not everyone wanted a geocode,…

I can’t find a single submission where anyone argued against a geocode. Care to explain where this claim has come from?

…then deliberately thwart them with a postcode system they would refuse to implement…..

You’ve been thoroughly debunked on this point already. How difficult do you think a software parser to map a geocode onto a routing area is?

---

plodder wrote: »

What I meant by public consultation was literally consulting with the public, not just selected people from the private sector. Input from the public should have been solicited as happens with many other projects (eg roads, public transport)

That makes much more sense in the wider context of your posts. My apologies for misreading that.

---

Bray Head wrote: »

No. Like I said, the different views have been well aired. Having read them all I take a view that is opposite to yours.

As I thought – nothing substantive and pretty much what I’m dealing with here. Sorry if that sounds harsh.

---

There is one thing above all else that has most disappointed me in this thread. When people tearing into Eircode make up all sorts of silly reasons they rightly get called out. What’s the difference between silly reasons like those and what has been offered for not using a geocode? What disappoints me is that people can’t see they are merely committing the same tactic they have called out others for.

oscarBravo

Aimead wrote: »

Which disadvantages are insurmountable?

Stop. With. The strawmen.

I didn't mention insurmountable disadvantages. I mentioned disadvantages. If your comeback to the mention of a disadvantage is to whip the goalposts around so that we're talking about insurmountable problems instead, it becomes clear that you're not interested in discussing the issue so much as winning an argument.

What difficulties have I not addressed?

If by "addressed" you mean "hand-waved away", not many, I suppose.

Let's review your proposed solution: it's a geocode, which means that it's hierarchical in the sense that it defines nested squares. This satisfies exactly one requirement of a hierarchical code, which is that it's possible to get a vague sense of where a code is without actually translating it to a latitude and longitude. It's not hierarchical in the sense of how post is grouped for delivery; it's not hierarchical in the sense of how the CSO structures its population statistics. It's hierarchical only in the sense of nested squares. This may seem useful to you; I'd argue that it's of questionable usefulness in practical terms. You could argue that anyone can group the codes however they like once they're translated into lat/long, but I'll counter that that's also true of Eircodes.

It's an algorithmic code, which means that anyone can derive several postcodes which relate to the same physical property. This has the disadvantage that it doesn't inherently define a canonical code for a postal address. The counter argument is that a database of canonical codes can be created and maintained, but there will still be a cost of maintaining such a database, which means there will still be a cost associated with looking it up. You've proposed adding a layer of complexity to the code with a z-axis value, but that's frankly just silly.

As an algorithmic code, it's pretty much impossible to prevent offensive words from being automatically generated.

I could keep going, but you're just going to counter either with the argument that it would have been possible to just add more and more layers of complexity in order to address these issues, or with the argument that since they're not your problems, they don't matter.

And you’re still making the same mistake. You can always label any individual proposed use as an edge case, but if you read through the submissions made you’d see that a geocode was proposed because it provides for a huge array of functionality – it meets these ‘edge cases’. Btw another ‘edge case’, which was supposed to be aided by the proposed postcode (read the docs), is the ambulance service. When you consider that a sizeable stack of accidents aren’t at the family home (which has an Eircode) you can see the problem – a geocode would have solved this.

The only way a geocode could have solved that problem is if, at the scene of the accident, there is a device that (a) knows its location and (b) can translate that location into the required geocode.

Rather than design a POSTcode around this one particular application, wouldn't it make more sense to implement a system whereby the device - which is almost certainly being used to contact the emergency services in the first place - simply provided that information directly to them?

You're arguing as if Eircodes are not helpful to the emergency services, simply because not every place an accident happens has an Eircode. That's like arguing that unique street addresses are not helpful to the emergency services, simply because not every place an accident happens has a street address.

If I need an ambulance at my house, I'll tell them my Eircode. In the past, I'd be reciting my well-worn spiel of directions. In the future, if I have an accident on the side of a mountain, I'll read out the lat/long from the GPS app on my phone until the EU gets its **** together and mandates a system where that happens automatically.

I can’t find a single submission where anyone argued against a geocode. Care to explain where this claim has come from?

Honestly, no.

Clearly you've decided to believe that everyone - everyone - wanted a geocode, including An Post.

I'm not going to bother arguing against that. Life's too short.

You’ve been thoroughly debunked on this point already. How difficult do you think a software parser to map a geocode onto a routing area is?

Trivial. I'm sure that's why An Post demanded a geocode from day one.

Aimead

oscarBravo wrote: »

I didn't mention insurmountable disadvantages. I mentioned disadvantages.

I’m confused. If the disadvantages aren’t insurmountable, meaning they can be solved, then how are disadvantages…??? Why cite disadvantages that you know to be solvable then??? That makes no sense to me….


I don’t think I’ve ever seen a situation where the strawman being objected to was actually more sensible than the actual position being put forward…..

You could argue that anyone can group the codes however they like once they're translated into lat/long, but I'll counter that that's also true of Eircodes.

But you can’t do that with Eircode without needing a database lookup which hinders interoperability, and you can’t do that with Eircode for any non-indexed locations. One is significantly easier to work with and provides more functionality, which is the argument in the first place…..

You've proposed adding a layer of complexity to the code with a z-axis value, but that's frankly just silly.

I think you need to back up why preserving geocode functionality, which was recommended several times during the consultation so wasn’t just some random thought, is somehow ‘silly’. This is little more than an evidence-free assertion – much like you’ve called out Eircode detractors for.

As an algorithmic code, it's pretty much impossible to prevent offensive words from being automatically generated.

Why? How you choose the offsets relegates entire sections of codes invalid, and doing a dictionary search on different offsets (similar to how Eircode would have filtered out offensive words) isn’t difficult. You can even add some rules about letters/numbers that can’t appear close together to as an algorithmic rule to reduce the search space even more.

This is the sort of ‘objection’ that I find most frustrating. It’s easily solvable, and has been solved for Eircode, but apparently you are so determined to hate on geocodes you are literally willing to play dumb and pretend such solvable problems can’t be solved.

…..but you're just going to counter either with the argument that it would have been possible to just add more and more layers of complexity in order to address these issues….

No additional complexity needed. I already described using offsets in this thread when I did some basic number crunching with reference to replicating Eircode’s non-similar codes for similar place names. Eircode being given a free pass on doing this, when a very similar procedure is being recommended here, is inconsistent at best.

Rather than design a POSTcode around this one particular application, wouldn't it make more sense to implement a system whereby the device - which is almost certainly being used to contact the emergency services in the first place - simply provided that information directly to them?

You’re doing the same thing yet again where you are treating each ‘edge case’ separately while missing the bigger picture – that such ‘edge cases’ are only a problem because they stripped out geocode functionality.

For note – the whole ‘benefit to the ambulance service’ was part of the original announcement for the national postcode. Pat McCreanor, then chief officer of the ambulance service, welcomed it. Eamon Ryan and Simon Coveney had a spat over this exact issue too. I didn’t pull this out of my ass, but since revisionism is easier to do I guess….

Clearly you've decided to believe that everyone - everyone - wanted a geocode, including An Post.

Since it is a core part of your argument it really does require some evidence to be honest, so I’ll re ask the same question – who argued against a geocode and where can I find their submission?

Claiming “not everyone wanted a geocode” as a bald assertion (which, even if true, isn’t necessarily a decent argument) isn’t much better than some of the silly arguments against Eircode you’ve chastised.

oscarBravo

Aimead wrote: »

If the disadvantages aren’t insurmountable, meaning they can be solved, then how are disadvantages…???

If I build a brick wall a metre and a half high across your front door, you'll be able to use a stepladder to climb over it, therefore it's not an obstacle.

I'm too tired to argue with the rest of your post. You can take that as an admission that I've lost the argument, if you like.

Aimead

oscarBravo wrote: »

If I build a brick wall a metre and a half high across your front door, you'll be able to use a stepladder to climb over it, therefore it's not an obstacle.

Throughout this thread you have responded to others who raised ‘difficulties’ (for ‘difficulties’ read ‘invented non-existent difficulties’) about Eircode by either refuting such or by challenging if they really were difficulties. I wonder how you would have reacted had they used the sort of asinine reasoning you are giving here. The poster complaining about their mobile not working with the Eircode website springs to mind – would you have taken them seriously had they come out with the above? I doubt you’d have treated it much differently than I, and I suspect you know that.

Sam Russell

oscarBravo wrote: »

As an algorithmic code, it's pretty much impossible to prevent offensive words from being automatically generated.

If you are worried about offensive words, then stick to a numeric solution, or reduce the number of letters to one or two.

Aimead

Sam Russell wrote: »

....then stick to a numeric solution....

Total non-starter. A numeric-only code would need too many digits to have enough capacity.

Trouwe Ier

This conversation is getting very intellectual for my level.

Here's something sort-of-related.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33808629

a65b2cd

ManAboutCouch wrote: »

Part of the Eircode project was adding eircodes to public sector databases. 46 million eircodes were added to these databases.

With 35% to 40% non-unique addresses, around 60% of most large public sector databases should have been eircoded (is this a new verb in the English language . I presume ESB may be the first letter with an Eircode that people will receive one from!

ukoda

a65b2cd wrote: »

I presume ESB may be the first letter with an Eircode that people will receive one from!

Nope. The electricity industry (suppliers and ESB networks) won't be ready for eircode until 2016, I'm reliably informed

a65b2cd

ukoda wrote: »

Nope. The electricity industry (suppliers and ESB networks) won't be ready for eircode until 2016, I'm reliably informed

They must have antiquated IT systems! One wonders why they were pre-coded?

ukoda

a65b2cd wrote: »

They must have antiquated IT systems! One wonders why they were pre-coded?

Nothing to do with antiquated systems, just a timing issue, I don't know much but I think it's because of some other change they wanted to do first, and it's actually a very complicated process with many players all needing to be ready at the same time

Brussels Sprout

i sent my sister an envelope in the post with just her name and postcode on it. It arrived at her house this morning.

Trouwe Ier

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

i sent my sister an envelope in the post with just her name and postcode on it. It arrived at her house this morning.

Not just me so!

1) How long did it take?

2) Did it have an An Post "Correct Address" label like mine did?

3) Er.....was she impressed ?

moyners

Apparently Fastway couriers are telling people not to bother including eircodes on delivery addresses. Seems a bit premature and I can't see what advantage there is in telling businesses to not include it?

https://twitter.com/CuriousWines/status/629241052919169024

https://twitter.com/CuriousWines/status/629246755348049920

bluesteel

so if I give my Eircode and nothing they'll refuse my business? What a bunch of clowns.

Sam Russell

bluesteel wrote: »

so if I give my Eircode and nothing they'll refuse my business? What a bunch of clowns.

I think you have that the wrong way round.

a65b2cd

ukoda wrote: »

Nothing to do with antiquated systems, just a timing issue, I don't know much but I think it's because of some other change they wanted to do first, and it's actually a very complicated process with many players all needing to be ready at the same time

Seems very odd that they would have got around 1.2 million addresses eircoded for free and then they are not using them to encourage early take-up? I can understand them getting this coding fully subsidised if they were going to use them immediately after the launch.

bluesteel

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think you have that the wrong way round.

how's that?

I'm **** sick of couriers ringing me up looking for directions.

(I'd include my address also of course)

MBSnr

moyners wrote: »

Apparently Fastway couriers are telling people not to bother including eircodes on delivery addresses. Seems a bit premature and I can't see what advantage there is in telling businesses to not include it?

https://twitter.com/CuriousWines/status/629241052919169024

https://twitter.com/CuriousWines/status/629246755348049920

Since it's not on GPS devices or Google maps yet, perhaps they are worried that people will say "Why are you ringing me to find where my house is? I put the Eircode on the delivery address, why are you not using that...?"

Of course they can't as of yet use a GPS device... so perhaps that will change.

Sam Russell

bluesteel wrote: »

so if I give my Eircode and nothing they'll refuse my business? What a bunch of clowns.

bluesteel wrote: »

how's that?

I'm **** sick of couriers ringing me up looking for directions.

(I'd include my address also of course)

In your first post you say you will only give your Eircode and they would be a bunch of clowns to refuse your business, but in you second one you say you will of course include your full address.

Can you not see who the clown is?

bluesteel

Sam Russell wrote: »

In your first post you say you will only give your Eircode and they would be a bunch of clowns to refuse your business, but in you second one you say you will of course include your full address.

Can you not see who the clown is?

Someone who refused to read a post because of a hobby horse is a clown

so if I give my Eircode and nothing they'll refuse my business?

I didn't say I would. I posed a rhetorical question. Let me rephrase that for pedants/idiots.

If an item were to only have an Eircode would they refuse to deliver it?

For various reasons sometimes addresses get truncated/ smudged etc.

Some people have sent items with just the Eircode, I've better things to do.

Even with my full address couriers ring me up, my parents live in the country, and even for my Dublin Address they ring up. Perhaps you can give an insight into the mind of these people?

oscarBravo

MBSnr wrote: »

Since it's not on GPS devices or Google maps yet, perhaps they are worried that people will say "Why are you ringing me to find where my house is? I put the Eircode on the delivery address, why are you not using that...?"

It may not be on Google Maps, but it's on the Eircode finder, which will launch a mapping application on a smartphone.

I wouldn't refuse to give directions to a courier who rang me to deliver an Eircoded parcel, but I would make a point of letting them know that they could have used the Eircode instead.

bluesteel

oscarBravo wrote: »

It may not be on Google Maps, but it's on the Eircode finder, which will launch a mapping application on a smartphone.

I wouldn't refuse to give directions to a courier who rang me to deliver an Eircoded parcel, but I would make a point of letting them know that they could have used the Eircode instead.

My sister had a courier ring her for directions to a country address (she didn't put the Eircode on the original order but tried to give it when he called) he said "We don't use that system"

I would have said "Well, I don't use couriers companies that don't use it" .... and then relented

plodder

oscarBravo wrote: »

It may not be on Google Maps, but it's on the Eircode finder, which will launch a mapping application on a smartphone.

I wouldn't refuse to give directions to a courier who rang me to deliver an Eircoded parcel, but I would make a point of letting them know that they could have used the Eircode instead.

up to 15 times a day. I'd say most couriers would make more deliveries than that per day.