National Postcodes to be introduced

ukoda · 21-08-2015 4:34pm

Aimead wrote: »

Been digging a bit more into the new PlusCodes. I think the use of the plus symbol in PlusCodes for distinguishing when localisation has occurred is genius, and if a cut-down version had been done for Ireland it would be superior to both Loc8 and OpenPostcode. Cool project, but I weep a little since it demonstrates a little og what could have been done with our postcode.

you know we still have pluscodes? Ireland isn't being left out of googles pluscodes because we have ericode.

And from looking at autoaddreses tweets they are integrating pluscodes into the eircode API, which suggests they can work together and compliment each other, I don't fully understand the extent of this yet

Aimead · 21-08-2015 4:50pm

ukoda wrote: »

you know we still have pluscodes? Ireland isn't being left out of googles pluscodes because we have ericode.

I have genuinely lost count just how many times this specific canard of “you can still use X” has been posted. How many times does the explanation of why this is a canard have to be posted before it stops being used????

The geocode functionality that comes with OpenPostcode, Loc8, PlusCodes, GPS, MapCodes, etc., etc., etc., was discussed at length during the consultation process. It was discussed why it was a good thing, how it aids interoperability, etc., etc., etc.

A central complaint is that Eircode, due to lacking this functionality, is deficient is terms of functionality and interoperability. The canard above doesn’t address any of this. All it does is emphasise the glaring lack of geocode functionality and lack of interoperability that Eircode suffers from. Why anyone would think this sort of two-liner comment, a comment that is little more than an admission that Eircode doesn’t have this sort of geocode functionality, would make a compelling argument is total beyond me.

And even more irony – the reason AutoAddress can make use of PlusCodes is because it was released as an open source standard, highlighting even more how conducive to interoperability a geocode is.

ukoda · 21-08-2015 5:00pm

Aimead wrote: »

I have genuinely lost count just how many times this specific canard of “you can still use X” has been posted. How many times does the explanation of why this is a canard have to be posted before it stops being used????

The geocode functionality that comes with OpenPostcode, Loc8, PlusCodes, GPS, MapCodes, etc., etc., etc., was discussed at length during the consultation process. It was discussed why it was a good thing, how it aids interoperability, etc., etc., etc.

A central complaint is that Eircode, due to lacking this functionality, is deficient is terms of functionality and interoperability. The canard above doesn’t address any of this. All it does is emphasise the glaring lack of geocode functionality and lack of interoperability that Eircode suffers from. Why anyone would think this sort of two-liner comment, a comment that is little more than an admission that Eircode doesn’t have this sort of geocode functionality, would make a compelling argument is total beyond me.

And even more irony – the reason AutoAddress can make use of PlusCodes is because it was released as an open source standard, highlighting even more how conducive to interoperability a geocode is.

Ericode isn't a geocode, it wasn't designed to be one.

It is what it is and it is useful for what it was designed to be useful for.

Having more than one of something isn't necessarily a bad thing at all

Aimead · 21-08-2015 5:07pm

ukoda wrote: »

Ericode isn't a geocode, it wasn't designed to be one.

A mistake that needs to be called out again and again. I note the lack of any argumentation to justify that terrible design decision btw.

Venting a little with this one, but had I asked most people a few years ago what a postcode was and asked them to describe such the majority of people would have included locational functionality. Read the submissions and the interim report – almost every party that broached the topic seemed to make the assumption that a postcode had something to do with a code offering locational functionality. Prior to the Capita’s complete upheaval in the design process I doubt I’d have been able to easily find people who thought differently on the issue of postcodes being a locational code.

Now consider this thread. The idea that a postcode has anything to do with providing locational functionality seems like anathema to some judging by their posts. That’s crazy, but there you go.

ukoda · 21-08-2015 5:13pm

Aimead wrote: »

A mistake that needs to be called out again and again. I note the lack of any argumentation to justify that terrible design decision btw.

Venting a little with this one, but had I asked most people a few years ago what a postcode was and asked them to describe such the majority of people would have included locational functionality. Read the submissions and the interim report – almost every party that broached the topic seemed to make the assumption that a postcode had something to do with a code offering locational functionality. Prior to the Capita’s complete upheaval in the design process I doubt I’d have been able to easily find people who thought differently on the issue of postcodes being a locational code.

Now consider this thread. The idea that a postcode has anything to do with providing locational functionality seems like anathema to some judging by their posts. That’s crazy, but there you go.

Personally I have little need for a geocode, I have huge need for a postcode like ericode.

From my point of view, a geocode won't improve anything in my life, the only thing I can think of that I'd use it for would be to let my friends know where to meet me, but then iMessage, whatsapp, Facebook, google maps pin drop and share etc can all do that without me having to deal with codes.

Makes no odds to me what my neighbours code looks like either, why would I care?

21-08-2015 6:22pm

Impetus wrote: »

The ESB and most other utilities no longer send bills in the conventional mail service. Notwithstanding the fact that Ireland has no ID card system, and banks and others are being forced to ask original for utility bills and similar to verify addresses. An ID card (unlike a passport) shows the current residential address of the cardholder.

Nothing stopping you from printing the PDF file that is emailed to you.

Calina · 21-08-2015 7:34pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing stopping you from printing the PDF file that is emailed to you.

These are not necessarily accepted as "originals".

Calina · 21-08-2015 7:37pm

Impetus wrote: »

The ESB and most other utilities no longer send bills in the conventional mail service. Notwithstanding the fact that Ireland has no ID card system, and banks and others are being forced to ask original for utility bills and similar to verify addresses. An ID card (unlike a passport) shows the current residential address of the cardholder.

On the ESB and related, I still get paper bills from 3 utilities.

It won't be long before we have a de facto one. The new cards public services cards have photographs of the bearer and afaik any new claims from SW will require a new card.

I don't think ID cards have to show the current residential address of the cardholder per se although a lot of them probably do.

Calina · 21-08-2015 7:41pm

ukoda wrote: »

Personally I have little need for a geocode, I have huge need for a postcode like ericode.

No reason why the Irish postal code system couldn't have encoded a little more geographical information than it does.

ukoda wrote: »

From my point of view, a geocode won't improve anything in my life, the only thing I can think of that I'd use it for would be to let my friends know where to meet me, but then iMessage, whatsapp, Facebook, google maps pin drop and share etc can all do that without me having to deal with codes.

Most people, I suspect, would have assumed that smartphones wouldn't really have made any major difference to their life already, sure don't they already have a mobile phone, what would you need a camera on a phone for, etc etc etc.

The point being, just because you cannot imagine a utility for it now, does not mean your life would not be improved by the existence of a postal code which encompassed some form of the features of a geocode. It wasn't necessary for the Irish postal code system to be completely without it.

ukoda wrote: »

Makes no odds to me what my neighbours code looks like either, why would I care?

I don't care what my neighbour's code looks like per se. But there is an argument in favour of better clustering of the code for navigation reasons.

________________________

To be honest, afaics, most of the arguments in favour of the Eircode implementation are "it's what we have, live with it" and "I'm alright, Jack, not problem if there's stuff you could have done with a different design".

SPDUB · 21-08-2015 8:05pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

My point is that the reason for the (daft) decisions within Eircode was to retain addresses as they were to avoid 'snobbery' yet there are many examples of these changes that would be seen giving rise to it.

Keeping on saying it's a change won't make it a change .

There is no logic to the 139 routing codes.

I'm sure there is some logic to them .You not knowing the logic doesn't make them illogical

oscarBravo · 21-08-2015 8:34pm

Aimead wrote: »

...had I asked most people a few years ago what a postcode was and asked them to describe such the majority of people would have included locational functionality.

[...]

The idea that a postcode has anything to do with providing locational functionality seems like anathema to some judging by their posts.

You appear to be arguing that, because not every location has an Eircode, that Eircodes don't provide locational functionality. It must take quite the effort of will to ignore the fact that every Eircode precisely describes a location.

21-08-2015 9:31pm

Calina wrote: »

These are not necessarily accepted as "originals".

If someone complained that the document wasn't original, I would insist that they send it to the issuing utility to verify as no paper bill was issued.

Otherwise they lose a customer!

moyners · 21-08-2015 11:39pm

The number of Eircode approved providers has quietly increased to 11 companies.

https://www.eircode.ie/business/feature

Carawaystick · 21-08-2015 11:55pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If someone complained that the document wasn't original, I would insist that they send it to the issuing utility to verify as no paper bill was issued.

Otherwise they lose a customer!

I hope you're never a customer of social welfare...

22-08-2015 12:04am

Carawaystick wrote: »

I hope you're never a customer of social welfare...

If I haven’t received a paper copy then I can't provide a paper copy!

Carawaystick · 22-08-2015 1:40am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If I haven’t received a paper copy then I can't provide a paper copy!

Then you will probably not be able to receive your insurance payments. A win for us.

Jack180570 · 22-08-2015 3:35am

ukoda wrote: »

Ericode isn't a geocode, it wasn't designed to be one.

It is what it is and it is useful for what it was designed to be useful for.

Having more than one of something isn't necessarily a bad thing at all

Eircode is a horse designed by committee = a camel..

22-08-2015 8:47am

Carawaystick wrote: »

Then you will probably not be able to receive your insurance payments. A win for us.

the bottom line is that as we're trending towards a "paperless" world, then the insurance companies are going to have to tell their minions to get off their bureaucratic haunches and accept the paperless versions.

moyners · 22-08-2015 10:31am

We may finally get a look at an official map of the routing code areas:

https://twitter.com/autoaddress/status/634763165717385218

dr.fuzzenstein · 22-08-2015 10:32am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

the bottom line is that as we're trending towards a "paperless" world, then the insurance companies are going to have to tell their minions to get off their bureaucratic haunches and accept the paperless versions.

That would be expecting insurance companies to display common sense and use their brains.

Calina · 22-08-2015 10:34am

Deleted User wrote: »

the bottom line is that as we're trending towards a "paperless" world, then the insurance companies are going to have to tell their minions to get off their bureaucratic haunches and accept the paperless versions.

This issue is not linked purely to insurance companies.

22-08-2015 12:27pm

Deleted User wrote: »

the bottom line is that as we're trending towards a "paperless" world, then the insurance companies that insist on original paper copies are going to have to tell their minions to get off their bureaucratic haunches and accept the paperless versions.

Calina wrote: »

This issue is not linked purely to insurance companies.

true, quote amended.

54and56 · 22-08-2015 1:51pm

moyners wrote: »

We may finally get a look at an official map of the routing code areas:

https://twitter.com/autoaddress/status/634763165717385218

What are routing polygons???

ukoda · 22-08-2015 2:01pm

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

What are routing polygons???

Basically an outline of the area a code covers on a map, so the boundary outline of each of the 139 routing keys.

ukoda · 22-08-2015 2:06pm

Aimead wrote: »

A mistake that needs to be called out again and again. I note the lack of any argumentation to justify that terrible design decision btw.

Well it has been argued here several times why it's a bad idea to use a geocode

The main reason: they are just points on a map that don't necessarily relate to anything, there could be multiple codes for one property causing confusion and not allowing address validation, then people have argued you could have 1 "official" code per property that's tied to a database for address validation, then people argue that this would cause confusion and we'd have offical and non offical postcodes, which is kinda what we do have now with ericode (official) and all others (non official)

Just because you don't like or agree with a point of view, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or hasn't been debated.

Jack180570 · 22-08-2015 7:42pm

ukoda wrote: »

Well it has been argued here several times why it's a bad idea to use a geocode

The main reason: they are just points on a map that don't necessarily relate to anything, there could be multiple codes for one property causing confusion and not allowing address validation, then people have argued you could have 1 "official" code per property that's tied to a database for address validation, then people argue that this would cause confusion and we'd have offical and non offical postcodes, which is kinda what we do have now with ericode (official) and all others (non official)

Just because you don't like or agree with a point of view, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or hasn't been debated.

Ukoda, your point of view as expressed above is illogical and fails as a reason why Eircode was chosen over Loc8 Code.

marmurr1916 · 22-08-2015 9:00pm

Jack180570 wrote: »

Eircode is a horse designed by committee = a camel..

A camel is a far more robust animal than a horse. Try crossing the Sahara on a horse...

22-08-2015 9:08pm

marmurr1916 wrote: »

A camel is a far more robust animal than a horse. Try crossing the Sahara on a horse...

True, but try to win the Grand National on one! :P

Carawaystick · 23-08-2015 12:06am

Deleted User wrote: »

the bottom line is that as we're trending towards a "paperless" world, then the insurance companies are going to have to tell their minions to get off their bureaucratic haunches and accept the paperless versions.

Or the bureaucrats in Social welfare could just not pay out... saves them money.

23-08-2015 12:19am

Carawaystick wrote: »

Or the bureaucrats in Social welfare could just not pay out... saves them money.

Well, when the minions are faced with an angry TD/Manager (embarrassed by the publicity) then they usually get off their bureaucratic haunches. They also get very pissed off so be sure to have everything else perfect!

Unfortunately, I've worked with people like this in the past and common sense goes out of the window if there is a rule (that requires updating) to follow. I've also worked with people who are "stiffed" if there isn't a process to follow, they insist that their manager provides a procedure to follow, rather than suggest a process and check that it is OK.
Of course, these are the type of people who "never make mistakes!"

marmurr1916 · 24-08-2015 11:20am

Deleted User wrote: »

True, but try to win the Grand National on one! :P

Try winning the Grand National on a horse - most of the fecking things either fall down or dump their riders.

marmurr1916 · 24-08-2015 11:32am

Quick question for fans of UK postcodes, especially those who think that you can see just by looking at them where they are roughly in relation to one another without the need to look up any databases or even consult a map:

which of these postcodes is closer by road to DL13 4HL?

Is it DL13 3NL or DH8 0AA?

Remember, no looking up databases, no checking maps. All you've got to go on is the similarity (or otherwise) between the postcodes.

And another one:

which is closer to DH6? DH1 or DH8?

plodder · 24-08-2015 11:47am

marmurr1916 wrote: »

Quick question for fans of UK postcodes, especially those who think that you can see just by looking at them where they are roughly in relation to one another without the need to look up any databases or even consult a map:

which of these postcodes is closer by road to DL13 4HL?

Is it DL13 3NL or DH8 0AA?

Remember, no looking up databases, no checking maps. All you've got to go on is the similarity (or otherwise) between the postcodes.

And another one:

which is closer to DH6? DH1 or DH8?

I'm not sure what the point of the question is. Obviously, you can't work it out just by looking at it, for 100% of postcode areas. What's important is the fact that you can work it out without having to license any product from the UK post office.

For many kinds of small business, they would just have a map on the wall. And given that the data is free, probably means there is a lot of free software out there which does it as well.

Incidentally, I notice that Autoaddress tweeted the other day, that delivery companies are using the small area codes, from the Eircode database, for organising deliveries efficiently. That kind of knocks the idea that small areas aren't useful for organising deliveries.

TheChizler · 24-08-2015 2:32pm

plodder wrote: »

That kind of knocks the idea that small areas aren't useful for organising deliveries.

Of course they are useful, that's not enough enough of a reason alone to incorporate them into the actual code though.

Aimead · 24-08-2015 3:22pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

You appear to be arguing that, because not every location has an Eircode, that Eircodes don't provide locational functionality.

Where I come from we call this a strawman. You know full the argument being made, as it has been made countless times (and not just by myself either). So why completely ignore all that and go for this sort of blatant strawman???

Hell, the post itself was a direct response intended to challenge the notion that Eircode shouldn’t have been designed as a geocode. Even if you couldn’t be bothered to read back or half-remember what has been said previously, the snippet that was being responded to showed the context that locational code referred to. Why ignore that sort of context???

Your last few posts to me have been nothing but cheap strawmen like the above. What’s the point of doing that?

ukoda wrote: »

Well it has been argued here several times why it's a bad idea to use a geocode

I’m pretty sure I’ve covered ever ‘reason’ that has been given. Let’s see how your latest fare:

they are just points on a map that don't necessarily relate to anything
The exact same argument applies to Eircode. You do know that, after consulting the database, you are given GPS coordinates for doing the navigation? Which is a point on a map after all….

there could be multiple codes for one property causing confusion and not allowing address validation
Easily solvable by using non-zero z-axis values for validating against.

…then people argue that this would cause confusion and we'd have offical and non offical postcodes, which is kinda what we do have now with ericode (official) and all others (non official)
You’re conflating two different functions – namely navigation and validation.

The navigation would still be based on the national postcode – that postcode would be a State-approved standard. Loc8, OpenPostcode, PlusCodes, etc. are not State-approved and thus the comparison totally fails.

The validation would be done against codes in the reserved z-axis range. This would be the one mailed to your house, and would also be discoverable on the website in exactly the same way you can look up your Eircode today.

I don’t see how the above is any more confusing than current Eircode with Shannon Airport being in Limerick – it just needs to be explained to people and time allowed for getting familiar with it. The difference is that, in my proposed scenario, the code offers a wealth of functionality that comes with being a geocode.

Just because you don't like or agree with a point of view, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or hasn't been debated.

If you could direct me to the document, preferably from the Eircode designers, explaining why a geocode wasn’t used I’d be glad to take a look at it. Because I cannot find where this was discussed during the consultation or with stakeholders (certainly not with the transport and logistics industry).

marmurr1916 wrote: »

which of these postcodes is closer by road to DL13 4HL?

Is it DL13 3NL or DH8 0AA?

As the crow flies DL13 is closer. I’d have to whip out my handmap at this point to see which road was shorter.

Not sure of your point since the key information, if you were making a delivery, is that you know you’d be doing DH8 0AA to DL13 3NL to DL13 4HL or its reverse. You can’t do that bit with Eircode.

And another one:

which is closer to DH6? DH1 or DH8?

I know, but I admit only know because I do this sort of shoite for a living. Durham has a central code (DH1) and the rest circumnavigate it starting with the north and counting clockwise. There is a logic to it.

I don’t think you’ve realised that you’ve actually undercut your own point here. The UK postcode has plenty of quirks and historical oddities (believe me, I know). And yet, as poorly designed as it was when it comes to geocoding, it still far outperforms Eircode on this sort of visual-only navigation.

TheChizler wrote: »

…. that's not enough enough of a reason alone to incorporate them into the actual code though.

Why not? It greatly improves the functionality and I can’t see any downside. Facilitating deliveries was a large part of the argument to have a postcode in the first place, so if it was a good enough reason to want a postcode surely it is a good enough reason for the actual code to have included it…??

plodder · 24-08-2015 4:02pm

TheChizler wrote: »

Of course they are useful,

That's progress I suppose. When the idea was first mooted, people said - "oh they were designed by the CSO for statistics, not for organising deliveries. And they said, look at these two small areas in some corner of the country, organising by small area doesn't work here. So, it mustn't work anywhere ...

oscarBravo · 24-08-2015 4:45pm

plodder wrote: »

That's progress I suppose. When the idea was first mooted, people said - "oh they were designed by the CSO for statistics, not for organising deliveries. And they said, look at these two small areas in some corner of the country, organising by small area doesn't work here. So, it mustn't work anywhere ...

I don't recall that objection. I do recall pointing out that small area boundaries get redefined, so including them in the code itself would require changing postcodes, whereas having them referenced in a database only requires updating database records.

marmurr1916 · 24-08-2015 4:51pm

plodder wrote: »

I'm not sure what the point of the question is. Obviously, you can't work it out just by looking at it, for 100% of postcode areas. What's important is the fact that you can work it out without having to license any product from the UK post office.

So it's not possible to tell which addresses are closer to each other just by knowing their UK postcodes (and not looking at them on a map) even though they're hierarchical and structured? Thanks for clarifying, that's all I wanted to demonstrate.

Originally Posted by Aimead View Post
I’m much more at home with chan sites and other places where, shall we say, moderation is done with a lighter hand. Boards.ie isn’t the typical place I’d post on, and I’ve been putting effort into holding back the sort of invective that I’d be free to post elsewhere.

But, in this case, I’m going to make a bit of an exception and call you out for peddling a wilful and disingenuous strawman (not the first one either).

Suppose someone gave you the following (making these up):
T23 UUUU
T23 VVVV
T23 WWWW
T23 XXXX
T23 YYYY
T23 ZZZZ

You wouldn’t know where they where with reference to each. Now suppose someone had given me the following:
BT56 UUU
BT56 VVV
BT56 WWW
BT56 XXX
BT56 YYY
BT56 ZZZ

I would now where they where with reference to each other. On visual inspection you can obtain useful information from the postcode that you do not obtain from Eircode. This point isn’t new and has been made multiple times in this thread. So why are you being deliberately disingenuous when the point being made is clear? You know that the routing boundaries are currently not known, and you know that it isn’t possible to tell where within a boundary a given Eircode is on visual inspection. To borrow your own phrase, isn’t a bit pathetic that an old code from the 60’s outperforms the supposedly modern Eircode in this scenario?

To put it simply – if you really believe in the veracity of your defence of Eircode, then why do you continually play dumb as you have done so above?

plodder wrote: »

What's important is the fact that you can work it out without having to license any product from the UK post office.

Just as you can work it out with eircodes without having to buy any product from any postal service. Remember the add-on for Chrome that allows you to bypass the 15 per day look-up limit? Once you know the eircodes you can find the distances and routes between eircode locations with Google Maps.

As the crow flies DL13 is closer. I’d have to whip out my handmap at this point to see which road was shorter.

Which DL13? There are two DL13 postcodes in the question. You're saying that the two DL13 postcodes are closer to each other as the crow flies than either is to the DH8 postcode? I'm not so sure about that either, but even if they are I don't think there are very many "as the crow flies" delivery services.

And you're not allowed to look at the map, remember?

Not sure of your point since the key information, if you were making a delivery, is that you know you’d be doing DH8 0AA to DL13 3NL to DL13 4HL or its reverse. You can’t do that bit with Eircode.

Why would you necessarily be doing DH8 0AA to the other postcodes? That's based on a pretty huge assumption that your starting point is either DH8 0AA or closest to DH8 0AA.

What if your business was in DL13 4HL and you had two deliveries to make, one to DL13 3NL and one to DH8 0AA but you've only got a limited amount of fuel that day and you want to know which of the two postcodes (either DL13 3NL or DH8 0AA) is the shortest drive away from you so you can conserve your fuel. Can you figure that out without reference to a map?

and another one:

which is closer to DH6? DH1 or DH8?

I know, but I admit only know because I do this sort of shoite for a living. Durham has a central code (DH1) and the rest circumnavigate it starting with the north and counting clockwise. There is a logic to it.

Just as there's a logic to the D eircodes (odd numbered ones north of Liffey, even numbered ones south of Liffey). Once you know that, you're grand. But if you don't already know that DH1 is the centre of the DH postcode area and that the other areas spiral out from it in that particular fashion, how do you know whether DH8 is closer to DH6 or DH1? Just by looking at the postcodes without reference to a map? Obviously you can't. Neither can you tell just by looking at KW postcodes (assuming you're not already familiar with them) whether you're going to need a ferry or not.

If you weren't familiar with AB postcodes would you be able to guess that AB10 and AB11 are the most central areas of Aberdeen city, and that AB25 is only a few hundred metres to the north of the city centre?

Or would you make the "logical" assumption that AB1, AB2 etc are the most central postcode areas and that AB10 and other double-digit AB postcode areas are likely to be suburbs of Aberdeen or even rural areas far from the city, with AB25 likely to be further out from the city centre than AB14 (even though in reality AB25 is just to the north of the city centre and AB14 is miles out from the city centre)? How would you know that just from looking at the postcodes themselves? Would you be able to tell that AB25 is further away from AB32 than AB14 is from AB32 just from looking at the postcodes themselves?

If you weren't already familiar with the KW postcode area would you realise just from the postcodes that most of the KW postcodes are actually on the Scottish mainland and that only a minority actually cover the Orkney islands? And if you had only partial familiarity with the KW postcode area would you make the assumption that since KW stands for Kirkwall, the largest town on the Orkney islands, that KW1 is going to cover Kirkwall town? And would you make the assumption that low-numbered KW postcode locations (KW2, KW3 etc) are more likely to be on the islands closer to Kirkwall rather than in the KW mainland areas? If you did, you'd be wrong about these assumptions.

You're forgiving the "quirks and historical oddities" of the UK postcode system because you're already familiar with it.

I don't think a system in which you can't figure out whether a DL17 4XX postcode is closer or further to a DL17 3XX postcode than a DH8 0XX postcode without looking up a road map, a system in which you can't figure out whether a KW postcode is on an island or on the mainland (fairly crucial information to have) without prior knowledge of the KW postcode area or without looking up a map, or whether an AB postcode is in or close to the centre of Aberdeen or many miles from the centre without prior knowledge of the AB postcode area or without looking up a map "outperforms" any other postcode system. In both cases, UK postcodes or eircodes, you have to either look up a map or have prior knowledge.

I don’t think you’ve realised that you’ve actually undercut your own point here. The UK postcode has plenty of quirks and historical oddities (believe me, I know). And yet, as poorly designed as it was when it comes to geocoding, it still far outperforms Eircode on this sort of visual-only navigation.

So you're claiming that it's easier to figure out whether DH8 is closer to DH1 or DH6 than it is to figure out whether D24 is closer to D22 just by looking at the postcodes themselves ("visual-only navigation") with no other source of information and with no prior knowledge of the DH postcode areas or D routing key areas?

ukoda · 24-08-2015 4:53pm

Aimead wrote: »

Where I come from we call this a strawman. You know full the argument being made, as it has been made countless times (and not just by myself either). So why completely ignore all that and go for this sort of blatant strawman???

Hell, the post itself was a direct response intended to challenge the notion that Eircode shouldn’t have been designed as a geocode. Even if you couldn’t be bothered to read back or half-remember what has been said previously, the snippet that was being responded to showed the context that locational code referred to. Why ignore that sort of context???

Your last few posts to me have been nothing but cheap strawmen like the above. What’s the point of doing that?

I’m pretty sure I’ve covered ever ‘reason’ that has been given. Let’s see how your latest fare:

they are just points on a map that don't necessarily relate to anything
The exact same argument applies to Eircode. You do know that, after consulting the database, you are given GPS coordinates for doing the navigation? Which is a point on a map after all….

there could be multiple codes for one property causing confusion and not allowing address validation
Easily solvable by using non-zero z-axis values for validating against.

…then people argue that this would cause confusion and we'd have offical and non offical postcodes, which is kinda what we do have now with ericode (official) and all others (non official)
You’re conflating two different functions – namely navigation and validation.

The navigation would still be based on the national postcode – that postcode would be a State-approved standard. Loc8, OpenPostcode, PlusCodes, etc. are not State-approved and thus the comparison totally fails.

The validation would be done against codes in the reserved z-axis range. This would be the one mailed to your house, and would also be discoverable on the website in exactly the same way you can look up your Eircode today.

I don’t see how the above is any more confusing than current Eircode with Shannon Airport being in Limerick – it just needs to be explained to people and time allowed for getting familiar with it. The difference is that, in my proposed scenario, the code offers a wealth of functionality that comes with being a geocode.

If you could direct me to the document, preferably from the Eircode designers, explaining why a geocode wasn’t used I’d be glad to take a look at it. Because I cannot find where this was discussed during the consultation or with stakeholders (certainly not with the transport and logistics industry).

As the crow flies DL13 is closer. I’d have to whip out my handmap at this point to see which road was shorter.

Not sure of your point since the key information, if you were making a delivery, is that you know you’d be doing DH8 0AA to DL13 3NL to DL13 4HL or its reverse. You can’t do that bit with Eircode.

I know, but I admit only know because I do this sort of shoite for a living. Durham has a central code (DH1) and the rest circumnavigate it starting with the north and counting clockwise. There is a logic to it.

I don’t think you’ve realised that you’ve actually undercut your own point here. The UK postcode has plenty of quirks and historical oddities (believe me, I know). And yet, as poorly designed as it was when it comes to geocoding, it still far outperforms Eircode on this sort of visual-only navigation.

Why not? It greatly improves the functionality and I can’t see any downside. Facilitating deliveries was a large part of the argument to have a postcode in the first place, so if it was a good enough reason to want a postcode surely it is a good enough reason for the actual code to have included it…??

Just FYI, but everything you type is your opinion, everything I type is my opinion, we are allowed to disagree, just because you type it here doesn't make it a fact, it's still merely your opinion and you are not an authority to overrule anyone else's opinion if it defers from yours.

Aimead · 24-08-2015 4:58pm

ukoda wrote: »

Just FYI, but everything you type is your opinion, everything I type is my opinion, we are allowed to disagree, just because you type it here doesn't make it a fact, it's still merely your opinion and you are not an authority to overrule anyone else's opinion if it defers from yours.

Hand on heart here, but the last time someone uttered this line to me was when I was at a meeting of the Flat Earth Society in Lancaster. Just sayin’.

oscarBravo · 24-08-2015 5:10pm

Aimead wrote: »

You know full the argument being made, as it has been made countless times (and not just by myself either). So why completely ignore all that...?

Because the argument is being made dishonestly.

You seem to feel that it's OK to say things that are untrue because others ought to know by now that you actually meant something other than what you said. Worse still, you seem to feel it's OK to accuse others of committing a logical fallacy by calling you out for saying things that are untrue.

The clear implication of your post to which I was replying is that Eircodes don't provide locational functionality. They do, I called you on it, and you're getting shirty with me for calling you on it.

I get calls at work from customers saying "the Internet isn't working". I check their connection; it's fine. When I call them back, it turns out that what they meant was that YouTube buffers sometimes when there are a dozen torrents downloading at the same time.

Now, as far as they're concerned, that's what they meant - but it's not what they said, which means they said something that's not true.

Your last few posts to me have been nothing but cheap strawmen like the above. What’s the point of doing that?

Cheap strawmen? Let's see...

I don’t see how the above is any more confusing than current Eircode with Shannon Airport being in Limerick…

Shannon Airport isn't in Limerick. Everyone knows Shannon Airport isn't in Limerick. It doesn't matter how many times people who are pissed off with Eircodes claim that Shannon Airport is in Limerick; it's not in Limerick.

If you want to have a serious discussion on the topic, stop saying things that aren't true, and stop getting shirty with people who point out the things you're saying that aren't true. If your objections are valid, they don't need hyperbole to support them.

ukoda · 24-08-2015 5:38pm

Aimead wrote: »

Hand on heart here, but the last time someone uttered this line to me was when I was at a meeting of the Flat Earth Society in Lancaster. Just sayin’.

Hmmm, well you seem to be of the "my way or the highway" mind set.... reminiscent of dictatorships!

marmurr1916 · 24-08-2015 5:45pm

Aimead wrote: »

Hand on heart here, but the last time someone uttered this line to me was when I was at a meeting of the Flat Earth Society in Lancaster. Just sayin’.

You're a member of the Flat Earth Society? You're from Lancaster?

Sam Russell · 24-08-2015 6:09pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Shannon Airport isn't in Limerick. Everyone knows Shannon Airport isn't in Limerick. It doesn't matter how many times people who are pissed off with Eircodes claim that Shannon Airport is in Limerick; it's not in Limerick.

So why do Eircode say it is?

marmurr1916 · 24-08-2015 6:17pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

So why do Eircode say it is?

They don't. The postal address includes the word Limerick. The geographical location of Shannon Airport is in Co. Clare. Can you understand the difference between a postal address and a geographical location?

If you can, you should be able to understand that Shannon Airport is in Co. Clare even though its postal address contains the word Limerick.

It's a bit like trying to claim that because Newry postcodes contain the letters BT that Royal Mail are saying that Newry is in Belfast.

Sam Russell · 24-08-2015 6:41pm

marmurr1916 wrote: »

They don't. The postal address includes the word Limerick. The geographical location of Shannon Airport is in Co. Clare. Can you understand the difference between a postal address and a geographical location?

If you can, you should be able to understand that Shannon Airport is in Co. Clare even though its postal address contains the word Limerick.

It's a bit like trying to claim that because Newry postcodes contain the letters BT that Royal Mail are saying that Newry is in Belfast.

All NI post codes include BT as part of their code.

If postal codes do not equate to geographical locations, why was it so important for Eircode to maintain the Dublin postal districts? (Except for Portmarnock and a few other places)

Why was it important to have huge routing codes that are not contiguous?

ukoda · 24-08-2015 6:44pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

All NI post codes include BT as part of their code.

If postal codes do not equate to geographical locations, why was it so important for Eircode to maintain the Dublin postal districts? (Except for Portmarnock and a few other places)

Why was it important to have huge routing codes that are not contiguous?

So according to the NI postcode, everything is in Belfast.

They maintained the D postcodes because they are already engrained in day to day stuff and people's memories.

marmurr1916 · 24-08-2015 7:37pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

All NI post codes include BT as part of their code.

[sarcasm]Really? I never knew that[/sarcasm]

Which kind of disproves arguments made previously in this thread (by other posters IIRC) that UK postcodes are linked to meaningful geographical locations.

I don't think a postcode system that uses an abbreviation of one city (Belfast) for an entire region of the UK quite meets that standard, do you?

I'm pretty sure that people in Co. Fermanagh, for example, don't find any particularly meaningful link between the letters BT and the county of Fermanagh. Unless they're unique among the inhabitants of the island of Ireland in not having any sentimental attachment to their county. Same goes for people from any of the other counties in the north.

Sam Russell wrote: »

If postal codes do not equate to geographical locations, why was it so important for Eircode to maintain the Dublin postal districts? (Except for Portmarnock and a few other places)

Because the idea of referring to Dublin 4 etc as D4 had already become ingrained as habit in many people. Many postal addresses, with or without eircodes, don't necessarily refer to geographical locations. Many others (probably most of them) do. Just because many postal addresses aren't linked to geographical locations doesn't mean that none are. Some are, some aren't. Is that hard to understand? :rolleyes:

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why was it important to have huge routing codes that are not contiguous?

If, apart from most of Dublin, there's no link between the letters used as part of routing keys and geographical areas what difference does it make whether routing key areas are contiguous or not?

SPDUB · 24-08-2015 8:21pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

why was it so important for Eircode to maintain the Dublin postal districts? (Except for Portmarnock and a few other places)

How many times do you have to be told that they retained the Dublin postal districts including Portmarnock

You keep stating that they didn't but it's no more true this time than the first time you said it.

Sam Russell · 24-08-2015 9:16pm

SPDUB wrote: »

How many times do you have to be told that they retained the Dublin postal districts including Portmarnock

You keep stating that they didn't but it's no more true this time than the first time you said it.

But Portmarnock was not in a Dublin postcode but it is now. I would imagine it is not the only place to move about.

National Postcodes to be introduced

Comments