National Postcodes to be introduced

Sam Russell · 20-12-2014 12:24am

Killmacow Co Kilkenny via Waterford.

my3cents · 20-12-2014 12:31am

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

There is no need to change your address because a delivery office moves!

I know the delivery office has moved but to anyone who doesn't know the area they can and do start looking for our house 4 or more miles away from where the house is. I asked in the post office and they actually suggested putting the new delivery office down and thats over 20 miles away :rolleyes:

recedite · 20-12-2014 2:39am

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

There is no need to change your address because a delivery office moves!

The High Court says you do.

Leonard Shelby · 20-12-2014 10:35am

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Small areas don't change every five years. Even if a small area were subdivided, this wouldn't necessarily have an impact.

It does. Houses that are in one small area will be in another after the changes, it isn't a simple case of putting all of the new houses in a new small area.

But since you bring it up, what about the much bigger issue of when An Post postal towns are changed, as towns expand and new roads are put in?

Extremely unlikely to happen, new houses will simply be added to existing post towns.

For a fee, or under very restrictive conditions. The fee looks set to be far in excess of the fee in a similar country with a similar number of houses and a similar building-level code (which is hierarchical). Singapore charges 122 euros for this database. The plan here is to charge far far more.

Pricing will be similar to what you've outlined.

I can't see how they can complain about being in the 'wrong' small area.

I see 2 such cases in the UK in the last year, not 'constant examples'.

Talk to the Royal Mail, it is a major issue.

If grouping of houses is such an issue, then there is a much bigger problem with the higher level part of the code. According to the documentation, there are significant areas of Dublin where there is a postcode that is simply not known or used. Areas identified are The Ward, Baily, Howth, Portmarnock, Loughlinstown, Kilternan, Newcastle, Saggart and Rathcoole. The population of this area is vast.

There is also a vast area of Dublin that may expect to have a Dublin postcode, but won't. If public opinion about postcodes is really so important, these represent a much more significant scale of problem.

The routing key is what it is, it can't and won't be changed for any snobbery type reason.

The objection of the public will be much more general, i.e., that the system just makes very little sense in the light of well established administrative boundaries in Ireland. Any logic that applies to the first part of the code is inevitably contradicted in the second part.

When the public provide their postcode their address will be populated immediately and services will be delivered to their door. The public have no requirement for hierarchy.

An Post are to be contracted to deliver eircode 'items' to all homes. It is a matter for Capita and the Department to ensure that this id done to an adequate standard. I have asked them for their plan for doing this and they have no plan.

It sounds like you have different information. Could you please explain to us how An Post are going to deliver items with no addressee name given to 800,000 non-unique address, and to do this with an accuracy of 99.9999 percent, given that their more usual overall accuracy rate (including non-unique, and with a addressee name given) is more like 98.1 percent, and the regulator's target is only 99.5 percent?

Seriously, just because they haven't provided you with information doesn't mean they have no plan.

Is Ireland really so different from every single other country in the world, that it requires a completely different solution from all the others?

Since you asked, and it is not particularly relevant, London is the obvious example of a postcode originally introduced to deal with non-unique addresses.

Yes, Ireland really is different from every single other country in the world.

my3cents · 20-12-2014 10:55am

recedite wrote: »

The High Court says you do.

Good link but not exactly the same thing. An Post would have to inform me if my address changed because of an operation change on their part. They haven't.

Banjoxed · 20-12-2014 10:57am

There is a golden opportunity to change Dublin 6W back to its originally intended Dublin 26, but will the opportunity be taken? Probably not!

Sam Russell · 20-12-2014 1:07pm

The Irish Government have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.*

*That was said about Assa Arafat by Abba Eban, Israeli Foreign Minister, but applies to nearly every Irish Government initiative to 'improve' things, like eVoting, PayPars, you name it.

a65b2cd · 20-12-2014 4:13pm

Interesting report in Irish Examiner of a survey of business opinion of Eircodes. Eircodes are not very relevant for a lot of companies, e.g. a newsagent or an accountant, so if you remove the not relevant and the don't knows then 9 out of every 10 businesses see benefits which is an incredibly high level of support.

“Eircodes will lead to strategic benefits to business by delivering new opportunities and efficiencies such as simplified compliance obligations, easier data quality management, sales and marketing planning, optimisation of product delivery, improved data analytics, better risk management and fraud prevention."

Sam Russell · 20-12-2014 6:28pm

a65b2cd wrote: »

Interesting report in Irish Examiner of a survey of business opinion of Eircodes. Eircodes are not very relevant for a lot of companies, e.g. a newsagent or an accountant, so if you remove the not relevant and the don't knows then 9 out of every 10 businesses see benefits which is an incredibly high level of support.

If you remove the rest who are not Capita, then you will have ten out of ten. Fantastic way of massaging statistics.

antoinolachtnai · 20-12-2014 7:45pm

Leonard Shelby wrote: »

It does. Houses that are in one small area will be in another after the changes, it isn't a simple case of putting all of the new houses in a new small area.

What changes? A boundary of a Small Area will not change. It just will not happen. There is no reason why it would happen. (A small area might be split, but that is a completely different case.)

Extremely unlikely to happen, new houses will simply be added to existing post towns.

So the boundary of the post town would only move in relation to new builds, but old builds would keep their existing post town (and corresponding code)? That would result in non-contiguous districts.

Pricing will be similar to what you've outlined.

How do you know this? If this is the case, the revenue will only be a few hundred thousand euros per year after the first year.

Talk to the Royal Mail, it is a major issue.

Just because they get a few letters about it, doesn't mean it is a major issue. There is the odd hubbub in Ireland about postal towns, but it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the concept of a postal town.

The routing key is what it is, it can't and won't be changed for any snobbery type reason.

As usual, the logic turns a full u-turn between the first part and the second part of the eircode. Exactly the same is true of the small area. The CSO and OSi aren't going to change it for any snobbery type reasons.

Seriously, just because they haven't provided you with information doesn't mean they have no plan.

Then how come this massive, fundamental issue isn't even mentioned in the design documentation?

SpaceTime · 20-12-2014 8:32pm

Is the post code being designed by Hyacinth Bucket or something?

Leonard Shelby · 20-12-2014 8:33pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

What changes? A boundary of a Small Area will not change. It just will not happen. There is no reason why it would happen. (A small area might be split, but that is a completely different case.)

You obviously have no experience of ED changes that occurred after every Census. You're simply wrong, go talk to Ordnance Survey and CSO.

So the boundary of the post town would only move in relation to new builds, but old builds would keep their existing post town (and corresponding code)? That would result in non-contiguous districts.

There are no boundaries, properties are simply assigned to a postal route delivered from a post town, any boundary is notional, your non-contiguous concern doesn't make any sense.

Then how come this massive, fundamental issue isn't even mentioned in the design documentation?

You'll have to ask An Post how they plan to do that, I really can't see how it will be too difficult for them.

antoinolachtnai · 21-12-2014 1:18am

Leonard Shelby wrote: »

You obviously have no experience of ED changes that occurred after every Census. You're simply wrong, go talk to Ordnance Survey and CSO.

What changes? Have you any documentation on this?

Are you talking about the Electoral Commission?

There are no boundaries, properties are simply assigned to a postal route delivered from a post town, any boundary is notional, your non-contiguous concern doesn't make any sense.

So all the houses with the same routing code won't necessarily be located together. This will be terribly confusing and messy.

You'll have to ask An Post how they plan to do that, I really can't see how it will be too difficult for them.

Seeing that they can't even meet the 99.5 percent target for fully addressed mail, it is hard to see how they can reach 99.9999 percent for partly addressed mail, which is what the 'postcode notification item' will be.

Sheldons Brain · 21-12-2014 3:53am

There are no boundaries, properties are simply assigned to a postal route delivered from a post town, any boundary is notional, your non-contiguous concern doesn't make any sense.

Any boundary is notional, but does not change very much other than perhaps in the suburban fringe, although there would have been some amalgamations.

plodder · 21-12-2014 11:48am

Leonard Shelby wrote: »

You obviously have no experience of ED changes that occurred after every Census. You're simply wrong, go talk to Ordnance Survey and CSO.

That's not right either. EDs can change easily by moving small areas from one ED to another but without changing the boundaries of the small areas themselves. And since there isn't any correlation between ED and postcode required, nobody's postcode would need to change.

Small areas weren't necessarily envisaged for this purpose, though they were designed to align with EDs. So, it is definitely possible. It's a shocking shame that this wasn't considered at least. The job of redrawing electoral boundaries would be a lot easier if that too were based on the same set of small areas that are used for statistical purposes and postcodes.

Sam Russell · 21-12-2014 2:00pm

It will be interesting to see if postal items posted simply with an Eircode get delivered come its introduction.

No name just A05 ABCD

I think that will be a real test for the postman - he will need a copy of the database in his pocket, and be continuously referring to it to it as he pushes his overloaded bike along the road. Oh what fun!

ukoda · 21-12-2014 2:06pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

It will be interesting to see if postal items posted simply with an Eircode get delivered come its introduction.

No name just A05 ABCD

I think that will be a real test for the postman - he will need a copy of the database in his pocket, and be continuously referring to it to it as he pushes his overloaded bike along the road. Oh what fun!

Well it's designed to be used in addition to a postal addrss and not as a replacement so hopefully people won't start doing that.

But perhaps An Post may now look at introducing handheld devices that have the route and delivery locations loaded on them (or accessed via 3/4G)

It would do wonders for delivery tracking of letters but I doubt they'd invest in it as the return wouldn't justify it

21-12-2014 2:30pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

It will be interesting to see if postal items posted simply with an Eircode get delivered come its introduction.

No name just A05 ABCD

I think that will be a real test for the postman - he will need a copy of the database in his pocket, and be continuously referring to it to it as he pushes his overloaded bike along the road. Oh what fun!

I did this experiment in the UK (Postcode plus the house number) and the local sorting office added in the street name before delivery. ( delivery time about the same)
Here they would need to add in the name and townland/street for the postman, well the whole address apart from the town.

Sam Russell · 21-12-2014 2:43pm

ukoda wrote: »

Well it's designed to be used in addition to a postal addrss and not as a replacement so hopefully people won't start doing that.

But perhaps An Post may now look at introducing handheld devices that have the route and delivery locations loaded on them (or accessed via 3/4G)

It would do wonders for delivery tracking of letters but I doubt they'd invest in it as the return wouldn't justify it

Well, that response just goes to prove what a crock this Eircode is - worthless.

It is clearly of no use to anyone - not even the postal service.

ukoda · 21-12-2014 3:33pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, that response just goes to prove what a crock this Eircode is - worthless.

It is clearly of no use to anyone - not even the postal service.

They seem to disagree as they have said they will see efficiencies from it. In terms of sorting and organising mail and they support it fully.

But sur im sure you know more about An Post than they do themselves

What's your idea of a good postcode? Replace the entire countries addresses with just a code? What a ridiculous argument to make.

Sam Russell · 21-12-2014 5:53pm

ukoda wrote: »

They seem to disagree as they have said they will see efficiencies from it. In terms of sorting and organising mail and they support it fully.

But sur im sure you know more about An Post than they do themselves

What's your idea of a good postcode? Replace the entire countries addresses with just a code? What a ridiculous argument to make.

I thought that is what Eircode was trying to do. Clearly not - as everyone who uses it needs a computer with internet access in their pocket to use it.

I think Eircode is an awful design that misses the whole point of a post code. It might work with automatic sorting machines, but how does postie manage?

It is useless for folks finding addresses without a computer with internet access in their pocket. Added that because it uses alpha-numeric instead of numeric, it makes it less robust - and random codes is just daft.

Saying everyone has a smart phone is just not the case, nor is everywhere blessed with the coverage required.

ukoda · 21-12-2014 6:07pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

I thought that is what Eircode was trying to do. Clearly not - as everyone who uses it needs a computer with internet access in their pocket to use it.

I think Eircode is an awful design that misses the whole point of a post code. It might work with automatic sorting machines, but how does postie manage?

It is useless for folks finding addresses without a computer with internet access in their pocket. Added that because it uses alpha-numeric instead of numeric, it makes it less robust - and random codes is just daft.

Saying everyone has a smart phone is just not the case, nor is everywhere blessed with the coverage required.

It was never anyone's intention to replace addresses in Ireland with codes? Where did you get that from?

And look we've been over this internet argument and it's been shown that ericodes entire database will fit easily on smart phones or sat navs which are the main forms navigation assistance

All codes are useless for navigation without some form of device to help you navigate to it. How would loc8 or other codes help the postman without a device??? Yeah he might know the house he's looking for is west of the last house he was at but that's useless to him

We have already been over the internet connection argument and I'm sorry but it IS valid to say that smart phone adoption in Ireland is HUGE and growing rapidly and so is the quality of cellular coverage. And even with dropped signals most modern smart phones are able to continue to navigate using its Gps chip, so even if cell tower data drops in and out it will still get you there. I've seen this on Google maps app a lot

Impetus · 21-12-2014 9:45pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

I thought that is what Eircode was trying to do. Clearly not - as everyone who uses it needs a computer with internet access in their pocket to use it.

I think Eircode is an awful design that misses the whole point of a post code. It might work with automatic sorting machines, but how does postie manage?

It is useless for folks finding addresses without a computer with internet access in their pocket. Added that because it uses alpha-numeric instead of numeric, it makes it less robust - and random codes is just daft.

Saying everyone has a smart phone is just not the case, nor is everywhere blessed with the coverage required.

Absolutely. Eircode is just a fraud postcode. No other country on the planet has a postcode that points to a single dwelling, aside from one dictatorship in the Middle East. It is no more than a PPSN for every home building (house, apartment, office etc). eg if payment card (eg Visa/MC/AX) data for Mr x is stolen/hacked, including the Eircode, this puts everybody else living in the same house at risk of copy cat replication to fill in the blanks for fraudsters.

You don't have to write your PPSN as part of your identity/address on envelopes or when ordering online etc.

Mobile phone coverage, especially data, is pathetic, especially in rural areas - the same locations that don't have a street address and house number. Eircode is not a solution for addressing / pinpointing rural addresses.

Government should be a service to citizens and residents - and its purpose should be to make the country efficient. Successive governments have failed in this regard. The postcode is a carryover from previous governments.

The idea of randomising postcodes is totally stupidly clueless. People in urban areas have had sequential house numbers since cities developed. Why should postcodes have to be encrypted?

The Eircode has been designed for the CSO and a few other government agencies - with no regard for the public or business needs.

While I have no problem paying a reasonable price for the water I consume (eg approx EUR 1 per m2 as in Zurich) (not EUR 5.88 as per water.ie), the political idiots are proposing to pay about 600 million EUR for water meters + installation costs, + first fix repair costs for a metering system that will not operational for about five years. One winter freeze and 20% of those meters will need to be replaced. Who will pay for that?

Off-topic maybe. But it shows the trend. Dysfunctional government driven by a clueless permanent government. Zero commitment to customer service for the public.

ukoda · 21-12-2014 10:02pm

Impetus wrote: »

It is no more than a PPSN for every home building (house, apartment, office etc). eg if payment card (eg Visa/MC/AX) data for Mr x is stolen/hacked, including the Eircode, this puts everybody else living in the same house at risk of copy cat replication to fill in the blanks for fraudsters.

Em yeah. It's great the way fraudsters ignore adress data at the moment... If my payment card data is stolen now they will take my address. Having an eircode at the end of it or not makes F all difference to anything. Eircode adds no extra risk here.

If you want to talk about fraud tho....there's lots of ways eircode will help prevent fraud in the banking and insurance sector, you know, a help to businesses....you wanted to see that didn't you? your argument is full of outrageous nonsense

Sam Russell · 25-12-2014 8:15pm

ukoda wrote: »

Em yeah. It's great the way fraudsters ignore adress data at the moment... If my payment card data is stolen now they will take my address. Having an eircode at the end of it or not makes F all difference to anything. Eircode adds no extra risk here.

Well, having someone's Eircode gives an excellent key into all databases, almost as good as the PPS number. People did not want to give Irish Water their PPS number for a very good reason, and I think that once people realise how powerful an Eircode will be, they will be reluctant to use the Eircode for the very same reason.

my3cents · 25-12-2014 8:28pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, having someone's Eircode gives an excellent key into all databases, almost as good as the PPS number. People did not want to give Irish Water their PPS number for a very good reason, and I think that once people realise how powerful an Eircode will be, they will be reluctant to use the Eircode for the very same reason.

If you want a name and an address look in the phone book :rolleyes:

What difference is an Eircode going to make?

ukoda · 25-12-2014 8:39pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, having someone's Eircode gives an excellent key into all databases, almost as good as the PPS number. People did not want to give Irish Water their PPS number for a very good reason, and I think that once people realise how powerful an Eircode will be, they will be reluctant to use the Eircode for the very same reason.

PPS number is entirely different. Did you hear anyone refuse to give their address to Irish water? Nope because the assumption was it wasn't personal or something to protect, in fact no one cared they had everyone's address. eircode is a persons addresses and no one makes a fuss about giving their address to anyone.

antoinolachtnai · 25-12-2014 9:40pm

Sure they do. They don't casually give out their address. They only give a full address when there is some specific need to do so. These aren't the cases where there is a big issue.

The problem is the 'middle' cases where you might give your locality, but you wouldn't give your full address.

Most postcodes give an option to give your locality without giving your full address. Ireland's is unique in that it does not.

ukoda · 25-12-2014 9:43pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Sure they do. They don't casually give out their address. They only give a full address when there is some specific need to do so. These aren't the cases where there is a big issue.

The problem is the 'middle' cases where you might give your locality, but you wouldn't give your full address.

Most postcodes give an option to give your locality without giving your full address. Ireland's is unique in that it does not.

You can still give your locality. No one had removed that option

Bray Head · 26-12-2014 10:20am

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The problem is the 'middle' cases where you might give your locality, but you wouldn't give your full address.

Most postcodes give an option to give your locality without giving your full address. Ireland's is unique in that it does not.

Addressing in Ireland is a highly subjective exercise and is in many ways reflective of where people think they live rather than by reference to any index or line on a map. Giving a locality may be useful for casual conversation but in many cases it is not useful in any objective sense. Some people include a nearby main road, some give a local area and some don't. In Dublin some give a postal district only on top of their street and house number. It differs hugely from place to place and person to person. It's certainly not reliable or useful for anyone providing you with a sophisticated service like a utility or insurance company. At the moment the only reliable, discrete parts of the address system as it is used are county boundaries and Dublin postal districts. But even in the latter there are errors in signage and usage all over the place. I contend that the address system as it stands in Ireland is semi-hierarchical at best.

What eircode is doing is layering a non-hierarchical system (after the first 3 digits) on top of a semi-hierarchical system. So in this sense there is not much change.

I've said before there is merit in non-sequentiality this given the objective of not creating postcode ghettos but obviously there is not agreement on this point on this thread and won't be.

Sam Russell · 26-12-2014 12:36pm

There is a very good case for having post codes - it is just that this particular design misses most of the requirements.

The way the current proposal/design is constructed is poorly executed. The first 3 characters defining a postal town is a basic folly because these could change into the future, and they leave resulting routing areas as huge with up to 80,000 addresses in the largest of them. The routing code should have defined a much smaller area of about 200 addresses which could have been achieved by a five digit numeric code, or a four character alpha-numeric code. Numbers have the benefit of not producing rude codes, and are harder to make them into ghettos.

Another objection is that it will turn into a revenue stream for a private company with no proper state supervision. So it not only costs the state €25m, it costs Irish business and consumers a similar sum. It should be fully at the states expense.

How can other countries provide a better system for free?

SpaceTime · 26-12-2014 5:24pm

Area code snobbery in London in the early 1990s

You can see why they were terrified of touching the Dublin district numbering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RQh9ijeVJ0

antoinolachtnai · 27-12-2014 12:11am

Not really. The problem in Ireland, as has been stated previously, is that stating the name of your locality is basically meaningless. 'Warrenstown, Co Meath' just doesn't refer to anything in particular. It may refer to up to 5 different places. 'Malahide, Co. Dublin' is similarly a text without a well defined referent. Even at the more local level, for things like 'Sandymount, Dublin 4', there is a great deal of ambiguity and interpretation. There are thousands of similar cases. It is a term that can be construed many different ways and the total area which it refers to is enormous.

Is it really too much to expect the postcode to resolve this problem? Any reasonably standard postcode model from around the world would have dealt with this to a greater or lesser extent.

If it is really so important to avoid postcode ghettoes, then why not randomize the whole code? Not just the last four characters?

Leonard Shelby · 27-12-2014 10:22am

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Is it really too much to expect the postcode to resolve this problem? Any reasonably standard postcode model from around the world would have dealt with this to a greater or lesser extent.

None of which would work for Ireland. To solve non-unique addressing requires a unique postcode. Looking for hierarchy in the postcode to solve privacy concerns completely misses the point. It isn't the infrequent times you don't want to provide your full postcode to a website that's the problem (give them the postcode of your local post office instead) it is the potential misuse of full postcodes stored in address databases. That concern is dealt with by enforcing data protection legislation.

If it is really so important to avoid postcode ghettoes, then why not randomize the whole code? Not just the last four characters?

Because then it wouldn't be a postcode. Routing Keys are required to manually sort post that hasn't been read by OCR.

antoinolachtnai · 27-12-2014 1:35pm

Leonard Shelby wrote: »

None of which would work for Ireland. To solve non-unique addressing requires a unique postcode.

There is no problem having a unique postcode that is hierarchical. There is no opposition whatsoever between these two objectives.

The current solution doesn't solve the non-unique addressing problem. It just spreads random number pixie dust across the country, ignores the fundamental problem and hopes it will go away.

Looking for hierarchy in the postcode to solve privacy concerns completely misses the point.

Why is designing privacy into the code missing the point? A system which is so orthogonal to international best practice is introducing massive uncertainty in all sorts of ways.

It isn't the infrequent times you don't want to provide your full postcode to a website that's the problem (give them the postcode of your local post office instead) it is the potential misuse of full postcodes stored in address databases. That concern is dealt with by enforcing data protection legislation.

So privacy is an afterthought? Who is going to do all this enforcing? Who is going to pay for it? Is there going to be a levy on the postcode?

I asked why the whole postcode shouldn't just be randomised, not just the second half, if it is so important to avoid postcode ghettoes.

You answered:

Because then it wouldn't be a postcode. Routing Keys are required to manually sort post that hasn't been read by OCR.

If this is true, your advocacy for randomising the second part of the code doesn't make a lot of sense. If routing keys are so absolutely essential and useful for sorting at post town level, even in this modern computerised era, then why not continue them on to allow manual sorting at local delivery level? How would this be at all harmful?

ukoda · 27-12-2014 3:05pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

How would this be at all harmful?

Because now you've to group houses and this where people willbe up in arms being grouped with "undesirable" houses

SpaceTime · 27-12-2014 6:59pm

ukoda wrote: »

Because now you've to group houses and this where people willbe up in arms being grouped with "undesirable" houses

People need to get over themselves and politicians should stop pandering to this kind of extreme snobbery.

Even Dublin 4 isn't all wealthy and includes some quite historically deprived areas.

Leonard Shelby · 27-12-2014 8:00pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The current solution doesn't solve the non-unique addressing problem. It just spreads random number pixie dust across the country, ignores the fundamental problem and hopes it will go away.

It appears you don't understand the postcode design.

Why is designing privacy into the code missing the point? A system which is so orthogonal to international best practice is introducing massive uncertainty in all sorts of ways.

Best practice is to implement a design that works, not copy one that won't. You appear to have difficulty understanding this concept.

So privacy is an afterthought? Who is going to do all this enforcing? Who is going to pay for it? Is there going to be a levy on the postcode?

Privacy isn't ensured by having a hierarchical postcode, that is complete nonsense. Are you going to ensure that people only provide partial postcodes at all possible times? Data protection laws already exist and are enforced, you do know this don't you?

If this is true, your advocacy for randomising the second part of the code doesn't make a lot of sense. If routing keys are so absolutely essential and useful for sorting at post town level, even in this modern computerised era, then why not continue them on to allow manual sorting at local delivery level? How would this be at all harmful?

Because they aren't required, would add additional cost, require to be changed with new developements, cause unfair social consequences, etc. etc. I appreciate that you lack sufficient knowledge in this area to understand these issues, but that doesn't translate into legitimate concerns. You would be better advised researching the area rather than displaying your ignorance. Until you demonstrate minimal competence in this area I'm not going to bother to continually repeat myself.

ardmacha · 27-12-2014 10:19pm

Postcodes do not cause unfair social consequences, they only allowed identification of areas.Randomization prevents this, but also prevents a lot of positive uses.

Carawaystick · 27-12-2014 11:19pm

Leonard Shelby wrote: »

Data protection laws already exist and are enforced, you do know this don't you?

Ah Here.
british intelligence are copying all irish internet traffic,
the cops were recording calls to cop stations,
irish water were demanding ppsn without any basis.
Alan Shatter and Michael McDowell used info collected as part of DoJ umbrella for electioneering

No-one will be prosecuted for these data protection breaches. Shatter may get a civil slap in the wrist.

antoinolachtnai · 29-12-2014 12:48am

Leonard Shelby wrote: »

It appears you don't understand the postcode design.

I understand it fine. Unlike some people, I have taken the trouble to read the project documentation. Aside from the problems with the design itself, I just can't understand how it is going to be brought into operation for less than five million euros above the costs that have already been made public.

Best practice is to implement a design that works, not copy one that won't. You appear to have difficulty understanding this concept.

This is not my language. The project documentation points out that the design is not international best practice.

You would be better advised researching the area rather than displaying your ignorance. Until you demonstrate minimal competence in this area I'm not going to bother to continually repeat myself.

It would be better if you explained your position rather than retreating to personal insults against me and dismissing my concerns out of hand. You are building 'straw man' versions of my points in order to dismiss them, rather than considering them on their merits.

I can see from your posting history since October 2013 that you specifically advocate this scheme and it would appear that that is what you are here to do. That is fair enough, I suppose, but now I find you are willing to broach no criticism of the eircode scheme.

You seem to think I have no expertise in this area; in fact I am a director of a national NGO in the privacy area and have fought and won on privacy issues in the European Court. Because of my expertise (I suppose), the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources recently met with me to consider concerns our organization had raised. I am surprised that you are simply dismissing my concerns out of hand, because that has not by any means been the attitude of the Department. Separately, I am also the convener of a national level committee on character sets and encoding.

Anyone reading this thread should remember that there is a lot at stake for the people who are promoting this code, and there are a lot of people who have to protect themselves. I have looked at this every way, and from what I can see, the design of this scheme has less to do with post coding concerns and more to do with protecting intellectual property. The design of this code is specifically to make sure that the postcode cannot be 'opened' in the way the UK postcode was opened by campaigners.

The merits of an 'open' postcode are not considered at all anywhere in the design documentation for the code and this should be a major concern for all concerned. The promoters of this code want to shut down debate and silence critics. This is not a good thing.

Leonard Shelby · 29-12-2014 2:41am

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

This is not my language. The project documentation points out that the design is not international best practice.

I assume you are referring to the pros and cons page that has been tweeted recently. The phrase is "not currently international best practice", and the word currently is important. This isn't a red mark against the design, it is simply stating that this is a new design and therefore can't adhere to current best international practice.

It would be better if you explained your position rather than retreating to personal insults against me and dismissing my concerns out of hand. You are building 'straw man' versions of my points in order to dismiss them, rather than considering them on their merits.

I can see from your posting history since October 2013 that you specifically advocate this scheme and it would appear that that is what you are here to do. That is fair enough, I suppose, but now I find you are willing to broach no criticism of the eircode scheme.

You seem to think I have no expertise in this area; in fact I am a director of a national NGO in the privacy area and have fought and won on privacy issues in the European Court. Because of my expertise (I suppose), the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources recently met with me to consider concerns our organization had raised. I am surprised that you are simply dismissing my concerns out of hand, because that has not by any means been the attitude of the Department. Separately, I am also the convener of a national level committee on character sets and encoding.

Anyone reading this thread should remember that there is a lot at stake for the people who are promoting this code, and there are a lot of people who have to protect themselves. I have looked at this every way, and from what I can see, the design of this scheme has less to do with post coding concerns and more to do with protecting intellectual property. The design of this code is specifically to make sure that the postcode cannot be 'opened' in the way the UK postcode was opened by campaigners.

The merits of an 'open' postcode are not considered at all anywhere in the design documentation for the code and this should be a major concern for all concerned. The promoters of this code want to shut down debate and silence critics. This is not a good thing.

The decision whether the postcode is open or not is purely a decision for Government. If they decided to pay for this from general taxation rather than a business levy then the design won't stop them from doing so.

I didn't make any personal insults. I assessed your competence based on your posts, if you felt insulted by my assessment that is your problem. Please don't trot out an invalid "argument from authority" you have to demonstrate competence by the strength and validity of your arguments.

plodder · 29-12-2014 10:58am

ukoda wrote: »

You can still give your locality. No one had removed that option

In the UK postcode, you have for instance:

BT - is the whole of Northern Ireland

BT74 - is Enniskillen and its surrounding area.

BT74 8 - is some area within the Enniskillen area

BT74 8XY is then some street level area within the above.

So, what you're suggesting with Eircode (examples made up)

W09 - refers to Naas (say)

W09-XP19 is a random address in the Naas postal area

So, if I want to refer to a specific area near Naas (eg Waterstown), then what do I use? The XP19 is no use. So, you have to drop that.

W09/Waterstown for example? How do I know there is only one Waterstown in the Naas postal district? We already know that townland names are not unique in the same county.

So, your suggestion does not solve the problem, or provide any improvement on what we have currently without postcodes.

Richard · 29-12-2014 12:12pm

plodder wrote: »

In the UK postcode, you have for instance:

BT - is the whole of Northern Ireland

BT74 - is Enniskillen and its surrounding area.

BT74 8 - is some area within the Enniskillen area

BT74 8XY is then some street level area within the above.

And coupled with a house number (or name) you have the same level of detail as Eircode with the flexibility of an open system.

antoinolachtnai · 29-12-2014 12:29pm

Leonard Shelby wrote: »

The decision whether the postcode is open or not is purely a decision for Government. If they decided to pay for this from general taxation rather than a business levy then the design won't stop them from doing so.

A business levy?

You know very well that you trotted out personal insults. You accused me of 'displaying my ignorance', for instance. That is an insult. You decided it was easier to trot out these insults instead of dealing with the issue, viz. that eircode has been designed to protect intellectual property rather than to be useful, that there are major privacy disadvantages to eircode compared to best practice postcode systems and that eircode is going to be extremely expensive, if not impossible to implement because of the flawed design.

Seeing as you consider yourself an expert on the topic, it would be welcome if you would now put forth your credentials. But I do not expect that you will. It would also be welcome if you apologised for your insulting remarks about me, but again, I do not expect you will.

OssianSmyth · 29-12-2014 2:51pm

I've uploaded a copy of the Eircode Database technical specification for anyone interested.

Leonard Shelby · 29-12-2014 4:49pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

A business levy?

You know very well that you trotted out personal insults. You accused me of 'displaying my ignorance', for instance. That is an insult. You decided it was easier to trot out these insults instead of dealing with the issue, viz. that eircode has been designed to protect intellectual property rather than to be useful, that there are major privacy disadvantages to eircode compared to best practice postcode systems and that eircode is going to be extremely expensive, if not impossible to implement because of the flawed design.

Ignorance is defined as a lack of knowledge or information.

Eircode has not been designed to protect intellectual property rather than to be useful. That is an ignorant comment. Claiming that it is going to be extremely expensive if not impossible to implement falls into the same category.

You are making baseless claims. You really can't see any other reasons why hierarchy isn't built into the postcode other than to protect IP? You don't understand how An Post will deliver the postcode to every house so you pluck a figure of 5 million from the air and present it as a reasoned argument? And you wonder why I don't take your arguments seriously?

Leonard Shelby · 29-12-2014 4:58pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Seeing as you consider yourself an expert on the topic, it would be welcome if you would now put forth your credentials.

Credentials do not make invalid arguments valid. You've proven that.

antoinolachtnai · 29-12-2014 5:05pm

You haven't explained what the 'business levy' will be. Is it a new type of tax?

You should make us more ignorant, by disclosing all the information you have instead of selectively disclosing it when it suits you. You will not, of course, because this whole project is characterised by cover-up and secrecy. For instance, there is an 804 page contract for delivery of the eircode, but it turns out that there is not a single word of this which is not confidential.

The whole eircode idea hinges on An Post being able to deliver a 'postcode notification item' 99.9999 percent accurately through the regular post. The reality is that this is impossible to do through the postal network. I have given detailed figures showing why this is impossible, and you have made no response other than to say that An Post must have some way or other to do it. But they haven't, other than to do something very specific and bespoke for eircode

My view, yes, is that it would cost at least 5 million euros to roll out that specific and bespoke delivery program for eircode because of the inherent flaw in the design and that this cost in addition to the budgeted amounts disclosed to the Oireachtas committee. It should be pretty obvious where that cost comes from but if you can't work it out, I can go back and spell it out for you.

These are all claims based on facts and reasonable estimates. You dispute these facts and estimates but you aren't putting forward any alternatives. You just claim that everything is going to be fine and you expect the public to accept that. It won't. The eircode program is just planning to ignore the problem and hope for the best. The result will be a shoddy system which will take years to fix.

yuloni · 29-12-2014 6:42pm

This post has been deleted.

National Postcodes to be introduced

Comments