National Postcodes to be introduced

oscarBravo

Bayberry wrote: »

I notice you're not quite as sensitive when eircode supporters stoop to the same tactic.

It's not the same tactic.

Bayberry

murpho999 wrote: »

Why are people going on about the emergency services.

The emergency services issue arises solely because we were starting from scratch, and we had the opportunity to select a post-code system that coud be useful beyond the realm of letters and parcels.

As such, eircode represents a missed opportunity, because other schemes that could have been used would have had greater utility for emergency services, and there could have been a public service information campaign to raise awareness of how the postcode could be used when calling 999/112. But because of the way eircode was designed, the emergency services can't go all-in on eircode, because that would just cause additional stress for people trying to call 999/112 if they thought that they would need an eircode.

The "eircode will cost lives" argument comes down to the fact that there will be some accidents in the future that could have been responded to sooner if a different postcode design had been adopted.

ukoda

Bayberry wrote: »

The emergency services issue arises solely because we were starting from scratch, and we had the opportunity to select a post-code system that coud be useful beyond the realm of letters and parcels.

As such, eircode represents a missed opportunity, because other schemes that could have been used would have had greater utility for emergency services, and there could have been a public service information campaign to raise awareness of how the postcode could be used when calling 999/112. But because of the way eircode was designed, the emergency services can't go all-in on eircode, because that would just cause additional stress for people trying to call 999/112 if they thought that they would need an eircode.

The "eircode will cost lives" argument comes down to the fact that there will be some accidents in the future that could have been responded to sooner if a different postcode design had been adopted.

The idea of generating a code for your accident is fundamentally flawed and the people who claim it could save lives are blindly ignoring the far superior way of identifying ones location when involved in an accident. Promoting the use of a postcode generating app to use for an accident a bad idea. That's why there hasn't been wide adoption of such a system in the 5 years it's exisited. If it was really going to be effective the emergency services would have jumped all over it. I see there's a massive marketing campaign to promote F.A.S.T to let people know what to do if someone is having a stroke, widepread TV and radio and print campaign with a huge amount of ambulances branded with F.A.S.T on the side with info, why no loc8? Why is it unheard of? Because it's awkward unreliable cumbersome to use and not as effective as cell tower triangulation combined with location data from the phones GPS chip.

5 years. And not one emergency agency has promoted loc8 in any meaningful way. Why is it they choose to ignore this "live saving" code?

Bayberry

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not the same tactic.

You're probably right - ukoda actually accused "the other side" of being paid shills, yuloni only said that he had better things to be doing with his time, and needed a good nights sleep before going to work in the morning.

ukoda

Bayberry wrote: »

You're probably right - ukoda actually accused "the other side" of being paid shills, yuloni only said that he had better things to be doing with his time, and needed a good nights sleep before going to work in the morning.

Again. I didn't say that? Pls stop miss quoting me. That's twice now.

Bayberry

ukoda wrote: »

5 years. And not one emergency agency has promoted loc8 in any meaningful way. Why is it they choose to ignore this "live saving" code?

Presumably for the same reason as Dr Fuzzenstein and Oscar Bravo - they were waiting for the all-singing all dancing postcode that we've been promised for the last 11 years. Spending a couple of million to advertise such a code that would be superceded in 18 months (and postal codes have always been promised within 2 years every time they were announced) would have been questionable at best, just as spending money to advertise eircodes for emergency purposes would be questionable now.

For landlines, eircode should be irrelevant - emergency services should be able to use Caller-ID to get location information (I'm not saying that the systems exist to do that, I'm saying that if that information isn't currently available to the Emergency services, it should be put in place), but landline companies should use some of their own promotional budget to send out a set of personalized stickers with the custmers eircode, that could be stuck on the side of a landline handset (though no doubt their liability lawyers wll tell them not to, in case they print the wrong eircode for a customer).

As more and more people lose the landline and switch to mobile or VoIP services, such a landline database becomes less and less useful. Even if everyone in the country learns their own eircode off by heart, emergency services can't make eircode the be-all and end-all, because a person using a mobile to call the emergency services often either won't know their eircode, or they'll be calling from a location that doesn't have one.

I'm happy to concede that eircode is better than nothing for calling the emergency services to some rural homes. But some supporters of eircode want to claim this as an advantage of eircode while denying that a different design of postcode would have made it even more useful for the emergency servcies han eircode.

Bayberry

ukoda wrote: »

Again. I didn't say that? Pls stop miss quoting me. That's twice now.

As far as I'm concerned, claiming that someone has "a vested interest in another code" is accusing them of being a paid shill. And that's a direct quote from you.

ukoda

Bayberry wrote: »

Presumably for the same reason as Dr Fuzzenstein and Oscar Bravo - they were waiting for the all-singing all dancing postcode that we've been promised for the last 11 years. Spending a couple of million to advertise such a code that would be superceded in 18 months (and postal codes have always been promised within 2 years every time they were announced) would have been questionable at best, just as spending money to advertise eircodes for emergency purposes would be questionable now.

So now they know what eircode is and isn't, then I assume they will be pushing ahead with supporting loc8? As loc8 still exists and can still support emergency services after eircode launches. I'll look forward to seeing that.

ukoda

Bayberry wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, claiming that someone has "a vested interest in another code" is accusing them of being a paid shill. And that's a direct quote from you.

It's common knowledge that the most vocal opponents of eircode are associated with another code...loc8. I've never accused anyone of being a paid shill, that's a quote from another poster who actually called me a "paid shill" for supporting eircode.

If you could just please stop mixing things up and attributing things to me that I've never said please and thanks.

dr.fuzzenstein

Bayberry wrote: »

The emergency services issue arises solely because we were starting from scratch, and we had the opportunity to select a post-code system that coud be useful beyond the realm of letters and parcels.

As such, eircode represents a missed opportunity, because other schemes that could have been used would have had greater utility for emergency services, and there could have been a public service information campaign to raise awareness of how the postcode could be used when calling 999/112. But because of the way eircode was designed, the emergency services can't go all-in on eircode, because that would just cause additional stress for people trying to call 999/112 if they thought that they would need an eircode.

The "eircode will cost lives" argument comes down to the fact that there will be some accidents in the future that could have been responded to sooner if a different postcode design had been adopted.

So you're now saying to people "Go on Google maps, go outside, get staellite coverage, wiait till it has your location, get your geo coordinates, format them as a text file and email them over to me at inforememergencies.superdoorp.respone@hopsitalemeergenciesdepartmentfastrepsone.irishgovernemnthealthdepartment.ie
Yes, that's going to be MUCH easier than:
What's your address?
10 Banana Street, Sometown.
You wouldn't happen to have an Eircode?
No
No problem, it's in town, we'll find it.
THIS GOES FOR ANY CODE!!!!!!!!!
Or
Where do you live
In De Shticks, Co Bogland, my Eircode is XYZ
Great, your Eircode will lead us directly to your door.
This is even better than PLZ or English postcodes.
However, no one is forcing you.
You can tell the ambulance dispatcher that you want them to go through this HUGE rigmarole while someone is dying because you "refuse to use Eircode"
People will only die because of crackpots, weirdos and cranks refusing to give their proper address.

murpho999

Bayberry wrote: »

The emergency services issue arises solely because we were starting from scratch, and we had the opportunity to select a post-code system that coud be useful beyond the realm of letters and parcels.

As such, eircode represents a missed opportunity, because other schemes that could have been used would have had greater utility for emergency services, and there could have been a public service information campaign to raise awareness of how the postcode could be used when calling 999/112. But because of the way eircode was designed, the emergency services can't go all-in on eircode, because that would just cause additional stress for people trying to call 999/112 if they thought that they would need an eircode.

The "eircode will cost lives" argument comes down to the fact that there will be some accidents in the future that could have been responded to sooner if a different postcode design had been adopted.

Hold on, the system is designed soley for assisting in mail delivery.

The emergency services part is an extra and I don't see what the complaints are about.

How much difficulty do we have at present in ambulances etc finding people?

I have not heard of any cases of people dying because they could not be found so why it's going to happen with the introduction of eircodes is beyond me.

No matter what the design, the caller will have to know the code when calling so the argument is false.

oscarBravo

murpho999 wrote: »

How much difficulty do we have at present in ambulances etc finding people?

Quite a lot. Get friendly with a dispatcher that covers a rural area and prepare to hear some stories.

dr.fuzzenstein

murpho999 wrote: »

Hold on, the system is designed soley for assisting in mail delivery.

The emergency services part is an extra and I don't see what the complaints are about.

How much difficulty do we have at present in ambulances etc finding people?

I have not heard of any cases of people dying because they could not be found so why it's going to happen with the introduction of eircodes is beyond me.

No matter what the design, the caller will have to know the code when calling so the argument is false.

But that is exactly the argument.
If I need an ambulance I have to say I live in Townland, Nearest Town, Co Somewhere.
Dispatch: "Can you give me directions?"
Me: "OK, so you go to Nearest Town, approaching from Other Town. Go under the bridge, drive on for another 100 meters and take a right and an IMMEDIATE left. Follow that road for 2-3miles until you come to a fork in the road, though it's more of a junction than a fork, hang right, but don't take a right if you know what I mean. Follow that road for another 4 miles and you will come upon a kind of double double junction, keep straight through BOTH junctions, they are a sort of nested junction and co-joined, just don't veer off in any direction and keep straight. Keep following the road for another 2 miles when it kind of turns right, but not really, but that is after another junction where you have to go straight, if you go on for another 2 miles I am the house on the right hand side with the red shutters, you should see a blue Ford Focus in the yard, unless the girlfriend has it, in which case it could be a silver Mazda or maybe no car at all. If you see a quaar looking guy with a green jeep hunting horses down the road, you've gone to far. If you come upon a dead badger, you're on the wrong track altogether, go back to Town and start again"

How the FCUK is that not a problem? Now i can give my address and postcode and the ambulance will come to my door.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me how that doesn't work? Anyone who says that doesn't work is either a moron or a liar.

murpho999

oscarBravo wrote: »

Quite a lot. Get friendly with a dispatcher that covers a rural area and prepare to hear some stories.

Yes, but they are probably quite a small percentage of all calls received nationally.

murpho999

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

But that is exactly the argument.
If I need an ambulance I have to say I liv.....etc

I agree with you, as I support the Eircode system and I think every argument here against it is flawed and bogus.

dr.fuzzenstein

murpho999 wrote: »

I agree with you, as I support the Eircode system and I think every argument here against it is flawed and bogus.

I believe that there is some merit to some of the con side arguments. But there will always be pro and con to every solution. It is easy enough to concentrate on the con side ONLY and then blow those arguments out of all proportion.
But what I have difficulty with is the fact that some quite small, weak and far fetched arguments then get blown completely out of proportion and some seriously dodgy logic gets deployed in some far fetched and completely skewed scenarios to comprehensively prove that Eircode don't work, won't work and will cost lives.
It's like saying "I bought a hammer to hammer some nails into the wall. The first blow missed the nail completely and the second blow landed on my thumb. I have therefore comprehensively proven that a hammer is a completely unsuitable, dangerous and useless tool to hammer nails into the wall. It does not work, cannot work and will result in injuries. Why don't we use a screwdriver instead? It is not an impact tool, you can't miss the screw and you won't injure yourself"

MBSnr

^^^
+1

/I was paid by Eircode for this post....

TheBustedFlush

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I believe that there is some merit to some of the con side arguments. But there will always be pro and con to every solution. It is easy enough to concentrate on the con side ONLY and then blow those arguments out of all proportion.
But what I have difficulty with is the fact that some quite small, weak and far fetched arguments then get blown completely out of proportion and some seriously dodgy logic gets deployed in some far fetched and completely skewed scenarios to comprehensively prove that Eircode don't work, won't work and will cost lives.
It's like saying "I bought a hammer to hammer some nails into the wall. The first blow missed the nail completely and the second blow landed on my thumb. I have therefore comprehensively proven that a hammer is a completely unsuitable, dangerous and useless tool to hammer nails into the wall. It does not work, cannot work and will result in injuries. Why don't we use a screwdriver instead? It is not an impact tool, you can't miss the screw and you won't injure yourself"

Hmmmm, the way this thread has gone of late is that the zealots have seemingly switched from Loc8 advocates to Eircode defenders. The defenders cannot brook any criticism of the eircode design. The design of the eircode is limited. It was limited from the outset because of decisions made that related to minimising maintenance and overhead costs, maximising revenue, and avoiding additional functionality that could have been used, but would have potentially imposed additional costs and/or diluted revenues. Its proposed designers are those who stand to benefit most financially from its introduction, limited design and revenue opportunities that arise as a result.

It's easier to defend the eircode design now that it's settled and due to be rolled out with a substantial publicity campaign paid for by the state. Just because it is being rolled out does not make it the best design that could have been selected.

Sam Russell

TheBustedFlush wrote: »

Hmmmm, the way this thread has gone of late is that the zealots have seemingly switched from Loc8 advocates to Eircode defenders. The defenders cannot brook any criticism of the eircode design. The design of the eircode is limited. It was limited from the outset because of decisions made that related to minimising maintenance and overhead costs, maximising revenue, and avoiding additional functionality that could have been used, but would have potentially imposed additional costs and/or diluted revenues. Its proposed designers are those who stand to benefit most financially from its introduction, limited design and revenue opportunities that arise as a result.

It's easier to defend the eircode design now that it's settled and due to be rolled out with a substantial publicity campaign paid for by the state. Just because it is being rolled out does not make it the best design that could have been selected.

.... or even a good design. It is all about foisting a bad system on us that will cost Joe Public through higher prices for deliveries.

oscarBravo

Sam Russell wrote: »

.... or even a good design. It is all about foisting a bad system on us that will cost Joe Public through higher prices for deliveries.

...and lives. Don't forget that it's going to kill us all. And steal our identities.

murpho999

Sam Russell wrote: »

.... or even a good design. It is all about foisting a bad system on us that will cost Joe Public through higher prices for deliveries.

How will it be higher prices for deliveries?

if the system works well then it will lead to less errors and cost savings. If it's crap them couriers will abandon it.

TheBustedFlush

Sam Russell wrote: »

.... or even a good design. It is all about foisting a bad system on us that will cost Joe Public through higher prices for deliveries.

This is a bad argument. There is no evidence or proof that this will be the case.
If delivery companies choose not to use it, then their costs remain unaffected.

If they choose to use it, then they must see some benefit in adopting it.

If Nightline currently sort according to county (26 areas) and now will be able to sort to 139 areas, then they see a benefit in this.

Other delivery companies may not see a benefit to it - that's their call.

What's the evidence that it will cost Joe Public higher prices for deliveries?

Sam Russell

murpho999 wrote: »

How will it be higher prices for deliveries?

if the system works well then it will lead to less errors and cost savings. If it's crap them couriers will abandon it.

It will be an overhead cost for business. If it works well, then it could save money - otherwise it is a dead cost. However, it will be an excuse for raising charges - which only vigorous competition will combat.

starlit

I thought it was meant to be introduced in the Spring time and now supposedly to be introduced this Summer. When is that likely to be in July?

TheBustedFlush

doovdela wrote: »

I thought it was meant to be introduced in the Spring time and now supposedly to be introduced this Summer. When is that likely to be in July?

From 6 July according to latest media reports.

ukoda

doovdela wrote: »

I thought it was meant to be introduced in the Spring time and now supposedly to be introduced this Summer. When is that likely to be in July?

Provisional date is 6th July. Subject to Dáil approval of a Bill amendment

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

ukoda wrote: »

It's common knowledge that the most vocal opponents of eircode are associated with another code...loc8. I've never accused anyone of being a paid shill, that's a quote from another poster who actually called me a "paid shill" for supporting eircode.

If you could just please stop mixing things up and attributing things to me that I've never said please and thanks.

It looks to me like I've been the most vocal opponent of eircode on this thread for the last couple of weeks, and I have no association of any sort with loc8 or any other location code, and I'm not jumping on any "everything the government does is wrong bandwagon". I have specific concerns that there were some really stupid decisions made in the design of eircode, stupid decisions that will mean that I end up paying more in the long run than I would if better decisions had been made.

So I have no idea what your "common knowledge" is - what I do know is that Oscar Bravo accused yuloni of complaining about paid shills when he simply said that he wasn't couldn't afford to waste any more time on this thread because he has to work for a living, while giving you a free pass for making a far more specific untrue charge against me.

Bayberry

TheBustedFlush wrote: »

If Nightline currently sort according to county (26 areas) and now will be able to sort to 139 areas, then they see a benefit in this.

And if a different design for the code had been selected, allowing for even more finegrained sorting, the benefit to Nightline and other delivery companies would have been greater.

The savings that could have been achieved with a better design are real costs, because we had the opportunity to do it better.

ukoda

Bayberry wrote: »

It looks to me like I've been the most vocal opponent of eircode on this thread for the last couple of weeks, and I have no association of any sort with loc8 or any other location code, and I'm not jumping on any "everything the government does is wrong bandwagon". I have specific concerns that there were some really stupid decisions made in the design of eircode, stupid decisions that will mean that I end up paying more in the long run than I would if better decisions had been made.

So I have no idea what your "common knowledge" is - what I do know is that Oscar Bravo accused yuloni of complaining about paid shills when he simply said that he wasn't couldn't afford to waste any more time on this thread because he has to work for a living, while giving you a free pass for making a far more specific untrue charge against me.

You are certainly not the most vocal anti eircode poster on this thread, fair enough you have concerns and I will debate you on them when my view differs. But please don't engage in the "you said this and he said that" stuff.

my comment was made in general terms when it certainly is common knowledge that Loc8 are the biggest and most vocal anti ericode campaigners. I'm not talking about this thread in particular, I'm talking TV, Twitter, anti eircode websites set up, Facebook, comments on every news article online, they are relentless. If they put half as much effort into their own marketing of loc8 as they have/are putting into their anti ericode campaign, then we'd probably all be using loc8 everywhere by now. But we are not, I've said this before, I've nothing against loc8 let them off to do what they want to do, I do feel however they have completely messed up on promoting and marketing loc8 in the last 5 years and have no one to blame but themselves. Their relentless eircode bashing is pretty sad to watch at this stage.

murpho999

Sam Russell wrote: »

It will be an overhead cost for business. If it works well, then it could save money - otherwise it is a dead cost. However, it will be an excuse for raising charges - which only vigorous competition will combat.

Sorry, but you're just scaremongering.