National Postcodes to be introduced

Thinkingaboutit

Grand_Rajnah wrote: »

From the RTÉ Website



About time but 2011 seems like a long way off

could they not jus use an existing one like PONC or similar

Frankly with postcodes, I'll believe it when I see it.

ukoda

thunderdog wrote: »

Cheers for the reply. I mostly use GIS to figure out where the best location for new stores would be (work for a large retailer), so looking at catchment sizes, purchasing power etc

You've potential here so to use the ECAD as it identifies what the property types are in an area you query, so you could find out things like; the number of commercial buildings in an area, occupancy levels etc

There's queries like: show me all industrial estates in county Dublin etc

Most of this stuff is currently in the Geo directory too.

I'm basing this on the product guide I was emailed after registering my interest on the eircode website, some people claim that this product guide was since recalled, but I've had no official notice to tell me that

thunderdog

ukoda wrote: »

You've potential here so to use the ECAD as it identifies what the property types are in an area you query, so you could find out things like; the number of commercial buildings in an area, occupancy levels etc

There's queries like: show me all industrial estates in county Dublin etc

Most of this stuff is currently in the Geo directory too.

I'm basing this on the product guide I was emailed after registering my interest on the eircode website, some people claim that this product guide was since recalled, but I've had no official notice to tell me that

I must get my hands on the product guide too, to see whats available.

Do you use GIS yourself?

ukoda

thunderdog wrote: »

I must get my hands on the product guide too, to see whats available.

Do you use GIS yourself?

Actually don't use it myself, the company I work for does tho

You can get the product guide by registering on the eircode.ie website and they'll email it to you

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

Not in 1960 anyway when hierarchical postcodes were invented out of necessity due to lack of technology

This is 2015, 85% of people have a web enable device in their pocket and that number is growing rapidly and will be 100% in less than a decade. I see no reason to stick to an old postcode design from decades ago to solve a problem that doesn't exist anymore (OCR tech could only read a postcode, now they can read the full address and in some cases you'd no choice but to manually sort stuff)

The same is true today. You should not require technology to solve a problem, when it can be solved without technology -- unless of course you are selling technology.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/amyanderson/2014/02/27/keeping-it-simple-doesnt-mean-youre-stupid/

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

The same is true today. You should not require technology to solve a problem, when it can be solved without technology -- unless of course you are selling technology.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/amyanderson/2014/02/27/keeping-it-simple-doesnt-mean-youre-stupid/

I could solve the problem of remote communications using carrier pigeons or smoke signals. But when the technological solution is far superior then I would be the stupid one not to use it.

That article refers to keeping things simple, not avoiding technology in favour of manual methods.

dr.fuzzenstein

ukoda wrote: »

I could solve the problem of remote communications using carrier pigeons or smoke signals. But when the technological solution is far superior then I would be the stupid one not to use it.

That article refers to keeping things simple, not avoiding technology in favour of manual methods.

+1, she did not say "replace a computer with an abacus, because it is simpler", but "if you can't explain complex concepts in simple terms, you haven't understood them."

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

I could solve the problem of remote communications using carrier pigeons or smoke signals. But when the technological solution is far superior then I would be the stupid one not to use it.

Of course. I work in exactly that business myself (communications software, not carrier pigeons..)

That article refers to keeping things simple, not avoiding technology in favour of manual methods.

The whole thrust of your argument in this discussion is that technology is always great, when compared with non-technical solutions to a problem. Remember e-voting. It isn't always.

oscarBravo

plodder wrote: »

The whole thrust of your argument in this discussion is that technology is always great, when compared with non-technical solutions to a problem.

There's a non-technical alternative to Eircodes?

plodder

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's a non-technical alternative to Eircodes?

No. What I am referring to is Ukoda's defence of Eircode's use of unstructured random numbers. I made the point ages ago (and again yesterday) that with a structured code you don't need technology for some purposes (like sorting of deliveries in a sub-depot).

Another example is pizza deliveries. If you have two guys on a motorbike doing deliveries, all you need is a map on the wall to decide which delivery guy gets which pizza. By looking at the postcode area, you see who delivers it.

With Eircodes, you must use technology to get over the randomness and look up the general location of each destination. The routing key is not enough information in itself.

Ukoda's point is that we should just "get over" these 1960's solutions and get with the technology.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

No. What I am referring to is Ukoda's defence of Eircode's use of unstructured random numbers. I made the point ages ago (and again yesterday) that with a structured code you don't need technology for some purposes (like sorting of deliveries in a sub-depot).

Another example is pizza deliveries. If you have two guys on a motorbike doing deliveries, all you need is a map on the wall to decide which delivery guy gets which pizza. By looking at the postcode area, you see who delivers it.

With Eircodes, you must use technology to get over the randomness and look up the general location of each destination. The routing key is not enough information in itself.

Ukoda's point is that we should just "get over" these 1960's solutions and get with the technology.

My point is: the arguement against ericode because you need a "computer in your pocket" is pretty moot as we nearly all actually do have a smart device in our pocket. That's all I'm saying

You also need technology for any other postcode solution.

ManAboutCouch

thunderdog wrote: »

Does anyone on this thread use any GIS system regularly? I use it for work and I'm trying to think of ways in which the Eircode system could be of benefit to me.

I do, and one of the things I use it for is exactly the same as what you're doing with it. From my point of view Eircode is arguably going to be the biggest change in GIS in Ireland since the impact of web mapping. Roll on the roll out.

plodder

yuloni wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

and a bit like how you can tell that all the addresses in each of those postcodes are near each other.

Sam Russell

plodder wrote: »

Remember e-voting. It isn't always.

eVoting suffered from the attempt to solve the wrong problem.

The problem that they attempted to solve was electronic based voting. The real problem was rapid counting using computer backed technology.

The route taken to solve eVoting was also wrong. They defined (obsolete) hardware and then tried to get software to complete the task. If they had defined the software, they could have rented the hardware each time there was a national vote. The lottery uses a card mark system to register 'votes' and has no trouble handing out millions to winners.

Our post code system is the wrong answer to the wrong problem. Happily, it can be redone quite easily as it is all software based - it will just be a waste of €25m.

SpaceTime

Sam Russell wrote: »

eVoting suffered from the attempt to solve the wrong problem.

The problem that they attempted to solve was electronic based voting. The real problem was rapid counting using computer backed technology.

The route taken to solve eVoting was also wrong. They defined (obsolete) hardware and then tried to get software to complete the task. If they had defined the software, they could have rented the hardware each time there was a national vote. The lottery uses a card mark system to register 'votes' and has no trouble handing out millions to winners.

Our post code system is the wrong answer to the wrong problem. Happily, it can be redone quite easily as it is all software based - it will just be a waste of €25m.

The evoting issue came down to solving a problem nobody had! Turns out we actually like the counting process as it adds to the drama and Irish people love horse racing and drama of a race ....

The biggest issue with it wa total lack of transparency and an easy-to-audit trail. We were presented with mysterious black box type systems where we couldn't check anything.

That was never going to work.

Eircode is solving a problem we so need to solve but not quite doing it in the best way possible.

It's solving a problem - lack of unique addresses but missing the opportunity to create a structured code that could have made it much more useful.

The system will work but it is a big missed opportunity to have something genuinely world beating.

From what I can see there was a terror of upsetting voters and house prices by creating new clusters that might have put a snobby area into the same code as an undesirable area.

plodder

Sam Russell wrote: »

eVoting suffered from the attempt to solve the wrong problem.

The problem that they attempted to solve was electronic based voting. The real problem was rapid counting using computer backed technology.

The route taken to solve eVoting was also wrong. They defined (obsolete) hardware and then tried to get software to complete the task. If they had defined the software, they could have rented the hardware each time there was a national vote. The lottery uses a card mark system to register 'votes' and has no trouble handing out millions to winners.

I was involved in the campaign against the e-voting system. There were a number of issues including:

1) this idea that if it's technology it must be good. People who questioned it were labelled as luddites - viz. Bertie Ahern and his "silly old pencils" jibe.

2) the requirement for secrecy (of the ballot) made it a very difficult problem to solve electronically, while keeping the same level of transparency. Because of this, they just decided to throw out the transparency, and meant the public were being asked to trust all kinds of people and things (including the unknown Dutch programmers who wrote the software, to the people who looked after the hardware when it wasn't being used)

To do it right, you need to make the system independently verifiable, so you aren't asking the public to trust the hardware or the software itself. Once you can achieve that, nobody will care about the hardware or software. You might be right that if it ever does come back, it could be a counting system only, rather than a voting and counting system. But, the same issues apply regardless of that.

SpaceTime

E-voting was a different issue entirely though. The main problem was there was no real demand for it in the first place.

The big advantage of e-counting would be better and more accurate application of the PR-STV voting system. That should have been the key driver in the selection of the technology.

Casting votes on OCR readable forms might have worked.

Bayberry

SpaceTime wrote: »

Casting votes on OCR readable forms might have worked.

If the politicians had engaged in an actual open consultation with the stake-holders, that's very likely what we'd be using today.

Instead we had political vanity driving though a non-optimal solution in the face of the clearly stated and readily apparent concerns about the proposed solution.

Sound familiar?

ukoda

Bayberry wrote: »

If the politicians had engaged in an actual open consultation with the stake-holders, that's very likely what we'd be using today.

Instead we had political vanity driving though a non-optimal solution in the face of the clearly stated and readily apparent concerns about the proposed solution.

Sound familiar?

The "concerns" are from a small minority (although they are very vocal) that have a vested interest in another code or jumping on the everything the government does is wrong bandwagon

plodder

SpaceTime wrote: »

E-voting was a different issue entirely though. The main problem was there was no real demand for it in the first place.

The big advantage of e-counting would be better and more accurate application of the PR-STV voting system. That should have been the key driver in the selection of the technology.

Casting votes on OCR readable forms might have worked.

There are issues even with that. Might be interesting to start another thread on this topic.

Sam Russell

ukoda wrote: »

The "concerns" are from a small minority (although they are very vocal) that have a vested interest in another code or jumping on the everything the government does is wrong bandwagon

I have no vested interest in any code, nor do I think everything the government does is wrong. [Well, I do think most things the government does is wrong because it generally is.]

However, the basic problem that Eircode tries to solve is the lack of unique addresses, but no attempt to solve that particular problem has been made. Instead a system of PPS numbers for properties has been devised that is based on random numbers for the sole purpose of deriving a revenue stream. If it was done in conjunction with a system of defining addresses (as in official addresses) in the real world, even proposals for how that would be achieved, I would not be so opposed to such a poor attempt at a solution.

Irish Water is another attempt by the Government to solve the wrong problem. We did not need €500m worth of meters stuck in the ground to stop leaks. We needed to stop leaks.

Another fine mess.

SpaceTime

I'd say the sole reason they are freaked out about small areas divisions and structure is house market and political impacts.

Dublin 4 suddenly becomes D41 - ringsend, D42 - Sandymount and someone in Sandymount gets stuck in D41 and all hell breaks loose over it.

I'd expect they were heavily lobbied by the property vested interests to ensure no such thing happened.

Why else do you think we've created random codes ...

TheChizler

Sam Russell wrote: »

However, the basic problem that Eircode tries to solve is the lack of unique addresses, but no attempt to solve that particular problem has been made. Instead a system of PPS numbers for properties has been devised that is based on random numbers for the sole purpose of deriving a revenue stream.

How do you propose they tackle the problem of unique addresses? I can only see two options; either they add an unique element to every address, or force thousands of people to change their address and implement strict guidelines for the use of existing and creation of new addresses. It's clear to me which one of those would be met with less resistance.

ukoda

Sam Russell wrote: »

I have no vested interest in any code, nor do I think everything the government does is wrong. [Well, I do think most things the government does is wrong because it generally is.]

However, the basic problem that Eircode tries to solve is the lack of unique addresses, but no attempt to solve that particular problem has been made. Instead a system of PPS numbers for properties has been devised that is based on random numbers for the sole purpose of deriving a revenue stream. If it was done in conjunction with a system of defining addresses (as in official addresses) in the real world, even proposals for how that would be achieved, I would not be so opposed to such a poor attempt at a solution.

Irish Water is another attempt by the Government to solve the wrong problem. We did not need €500m worth of meters stuck in the ground to stop leaks. We needed to stop leaks.

Another fine mess.

It actually does solve the problem of non unique addresses in so far as there won't be any after the code is appended to each address. It's not the solution you wanted, but it is a solution. The solution that's easiest to implement and doesn't require the public to change anything

Sam Russell

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'd say the sole reason they are freaked out about small areas divisions and structure is house market and political impacts.

Dublin 4 suddenly becomes D41 - ringsend, D42 - Sandymount and someone in Sandymount gets stuck in D41 and all hell breaks loose over it.

I'd expect they were heavily lobbied by the property vested interests to ensure no such thing happened.

Why else do you think we've created random codes ...

Well, the solution I would have gone for if I was the designer, would be to base the code on the old Telecom numbering system for telephone numbers. Drop the zero, then take the first four digits of the telephone numbers that are generally used for the area. Examples :- Dublin 4 would be covered by 1668, 1269, etc. Wexford would be 53xx, Waterford 51xx, Cork 21xx, Galway 91xx, Limerick 61xx, etc etc. After that first group, three or four numbers could reduce the areas to small groups of addresses. This would allow the codes that start with zero to be non-geographic.

TheChizler wrote: »

How do you propose they tackle the problem of unique addresses? I can only see two options; either they add an unique element to every address, or force thousands of people to change their address and implement strict guidelines for the use of existing and creation of new addresses. It's clear to me which one of those would be met with less resistance.

Well, the first task is to identify HOW it is to tackled.

There needs to be a national authority that assigns addresses - like the Revenue as they collect property tax.

All houses should be required to show their house number or house name at the gate so it can be read from the road. This would apply to all houses whether they are urban or rural.

Urban areas with road names but not numbered should be all given numbers - not a difficult job.

Our non-unique addresses are based on -Occupant's Name, Townland, Barony, County. This needs to be extended to include Occupant's name, House number/name, Roadname, Townland, Post town, Barony, County.

There are only two items in the second list not in the first - house name/number, and road name. The house holder can assign the house name so no political problem there. The only problem is then down to road name and that just requires agreement among neighbours (which could give rise to problems but the address authority could help with this). Metric distance numbering can be assigned later.

All this does not need to be done at once but a start should be made, and in a decade or so .......

Bayberry

ukoda wrote: »

The "concerns" are from a small minority (although they are very vocal) that have a vested interest in another code or jumping on the everything the government does is wrong bandwagon

Sure, and all the supporters of eircode are fully paid up members of the Labour Party and/or work for Crapita.

The only vested interest that I have is in not seeing yet another wasted opportunity to get something done right for a change. Unfortunately, this is Ireland, and we don't have Brussels guiding hand on this project, so I'm going to be disappointed yet again.

oscarBravo

Bayberry wrote: »

The only vested interest that I have is in not seeing yet another wasted opportunity to get something done right for a change.

If by "done right" you mean "satisfying all the conflicting requirements of all interested parties", you may be waiting a while.

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

Sam Russell

yuloni wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Those who want a secure revenue stream. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to work out who that is.

oscarBravo

yuloni wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

...to whom? Why do you say they're of little practical use? Do you consider the first few characters of the UK postcode to be similarly useless?

Sam Russell wrote: »

Those who want a secure revenue stream. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to work out who that is.

Man, that sort of barstool griping is getting really old.