National Postcodes to be introduced

Sam Russell

marmurr1916 wrote: »

Which people who 'don't have the same interest' are having any significant costs imposed on them?

The total cost of developing eircodes and Capita's management of eircode over the contract period (assuming this €38 million figure is accurate) is just over 0.8c per head of population (based on the 2011 Census population figure, which has already increased and will increase over the 10 year lifetime of the contract), hardly a huge amount of money.

If the €27 million cost cited in this Dáil debate is correct, it works out at about 0.6c per head of population per year, again based on the 2011 census figure of 4,588,252 people.

Assuming a total cost of €38 million over 10 years, and assuming an average population of 4,750,000 over the contract lifetime, it will have cost 0.8 cents per person per year to implement and manage eircodes by the time the contract ends.

If you still find the burden of paying that amount per year too much, PM me your bank details and I'll credit your account with 10 cents, a profit of 2 cents for you!

Only companies and individuals who want full access to the database plus the ability to leverage the database for commercial or other purposes have to pay extra. And presumably these are people who are interested in using eircodes...

I think your maths is out. €38m divided by 4.7m is €8 not 80 cents. Over 10 years that is 80 cents per year. Quite a difference.

Also €27 m divided by 4.7m is €5.74c. or 57 cents per year. Again quite a difference.

It should be calculated per address not per person, so the first figure becomes €38m divided by 2.2m addresses, so that works out as €17.7 per address. I think that is a very high figure, and add to that the licence fee income and it very high indeed.

MBSnr

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think your maths is out. €38m divided by 4.7m is €8 not 80 cents. Over 10 years that is 80 cents per year. Quite a difference.

Also €27 m divided by 4.7m is €5.74c. or 57 cents per year. Again quite a difference.

It should be calculated per address not per person, so the first figure becomes €38m divided by 2.2m addresses, so that works out as €17.7 per address. I think that is a very high figure, and add to that the licence fee income and it very high indeed.

Not address but per tax payer surely? Anyhow there's about 2m tax payers, so the same maths applies... I did throw this in many posts back in July. I assumed it would cost €50m (eventually once the true figures 'come out') over ten years with 1.9m odd tax payers.

1.9m tax payers. 50m/1.9m=€26 ea. or €2.60 per yr.

recedite

MBSnr wrote: »

1.9m tax payers. 50m/1.9m=€26 ea. or €2.60 per yr.

Can I deduct the €2.60 from my taxes every year, seeing as I am not using eircode?

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

And which of those companies is having the code forced on them? And which ones are now banned from continuing to use a geo code?

None of them, I'm still failing to see who is being "forced to pay" as you claim.

I don't really have time for this continually going over the same ground. The fact is that there is still significant benefit in any postcode, particularly one that uniquely locates most (if not all) delivery addresses. Therefore, any company that wants to gain the benefit of this, has to pay for Eircode (directly or indirectly), whereas a different type of postcode (a geocode) would have been more useful to that sector, at probably very low, or zero cost.

In the UK, the comparable database is free (the postcode to geocode file), but you have to pay for the address file. That kind of segmentation isn't possible with Eircode.

Of course, all of this is moot anyway. Here we are four months after the launch, and it's still not available on any satnav, or google maps. Had a freely licensed geocode been used, I strongly believe that it would have been widely deployed already.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

I don't really have time for this continually going over the same ground. The fact is that there is still significant benefit in any postcode, particularly one that uniquely locates most (if not all) delivery addresses. Therefore, any company that wants to gain the benefit of this, has to pay for Eircode (directly or indirectly), whereas a different type of postcode (a geocode) would have been more useful to that sector, at probably very low, or zero cost.

In the UK, the comparable database is free (the postcode to geocode file), but you have to pay for the address file. That kind of segmentation isn't possible with Eircode.

Of course, all of this is moot anyway. Here we are four months after the launch, and it's still not available on any satnav, or google maps. Had a freely licensed geocode been used, I strongly believe that it would have been widely deployed already.

The same segmenting as the uk postcode is possible with eircode, you could give the codes and geo coordinates for free and charge for the address file.

It's not true to say it would have been adopted faster if it was a geo code, a pure geo code with no database would be largely useless to the majority of industries. Why would an insurance company or bank or call centre bother updating their systems to take a postcode that has no direct relationship to its customers addresses?

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

The same segmenting as the uk postcode is possible with eircode, you could give the codes and geo coordinates for free and charge for the address file.

Yes, perhaps that is true.

It's not true to say it would have been adopted faster if it was a geo code, a pure geo code with no database would be largely useless to the majority of industries. Why would an insurance company or bank or call centre bother updating their systems to take a postcode that has no direct relationship to its customers addresses?

This is typical of the ducking and weaving you are doing on this thread. I was clearly talking about the use of the code in the transport/logistics sector - not banks or insurance companies. The whole point I am making is that different sectors have different requirements.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

Yes, perhaps that is true.

I was clearly talking about the use of the code in the transport/logistics sector - not banks or insurance companies. The whole point I am making is that different sectors have different requirements.

I don't think you made that clear at all. You said it would be used on sat navs etc by now, which isn't exclusive to transport industry and applies to the public also.

I still disagree, I think if it was a pure geo code, then you would NEVER see it on google maps or many of the sat nav companies. They all have their own version of geo codes they developed themselves, Tom Tom, Google etc, that's why loc8 haven't been able to get their code on Google in over 5 years and I couldn't see Garmin putting another geo code on their devices either. I would hazard a guess that having a pure geo code would be a nail in the coffin for our national postcode.

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

I don't think you made that clear at all. You said it would be used on sat navs etc by now, which isn't exclusive to transport industry and applies to the public also.

Are satnavs used by banks and insurance companies? You're just nit-picking for the sake of it.

To repeat: Eircode might be implemented already by satnavs and by google, if it had used a simple freely licensed geocode. A geocode can be implemented in probably a few dozen lines of software - is implemented once, and never has to be touched again. Don't forget that loc8 managed to convince garmin to do that, and it didn't have the weight of the state behind it. Here we are four months on, and there's no sign of anyone implementing Eircode in satnavs. Therefore, geocodes without database tables do have some advantages.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

Are satnavs used by banks and insurance companies? You're just nit-picking for the sake of it.

To repeat: Eircode might be implemented already by satnavs and by google, if it had used a simple freely licensed geocode. A geocode can be implemented in probably a few dozen lines of software - is implemented once, and never has to be touched again. Don't forget that loc8 managed to convince garmin to do that, and it didn't have the weight of the state behind it. Here we are four months on, and there's no sign of anyone implementing Eircode in satnavs. Therefore, geocodes without database tables do have some advantages.

You've chosen to ignore the points I made above about why a geo code would probably never be on other sat navs and google maps. The reason Garmin took loc8 on board is because they didn't have a Geo code of their own, all the rest do.

Answer this, if it's so easy to implement a geo code at little to no cost, why isn't there any Irish ones on Google/Apple maps or Tom Tom devices? They've existed for years?
The reality is that standalone sat nav devices are in huge decline (I read somewhere about a 60% decrease in sales) Garmin were obviously trying to do anything they could to stem declining sales and backed loc8, in my opinion they backed the wrong horse.

Years on, 5 years or more, there's no sign of anyone else backing a geo code that isn't their own.

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

You've chosen to ignore the points I made above about why a geo code would probably never be on other sat navs and google maps. The reason Garmin took loc8 on board is because they didn't have a Geo code of their own, all the rest do.

I have no idea what your point above is. The reason why Garmin took loc8 was because there was no postcode for Ireland, and loc8 convinced them that loc8 would be it (de-facto if not de-jure)

Answer this, if it's so easy to implement a geo code at little to no cost, why isn't there any Irish ones on Google/Apple maps or Tom Tom devices? They've existed for years?

The (other) point I think you are missing is that no postcode has any value, unless it is adopted by users. That is why nobody would just implement some random geocode on satnavs. As I said above, loc8 convinced garmin (and Enterprise Ireland) that they were the ones. But, the problem is - nobody can compete with the state when it comes to infratstructure like postcodes. loc8 gambled that the state would give up, but the state didn't and now loc8 is in trouble. Garmin backed the wrong horse. Though frankly, it's hardly that big a deal for them.

The reality is that standalone sat nav devices are in huge decline (I read somewhere about a 60% decrease in sales) Garmin were obviously trying to do anything they could to stem declining sales and backed loc8, in my opinion they backed the wrong horse.

Years on, 5 years or more, there's no sign of anyone else backing a geo code that isn't their own.

satnavs weren't in decline when garmin adopted loc8.

Anyway, we are straying from the point I pulled you up on :- that geocodes have some advantages over postcodes based on databases. It's absurd to argue that they have no advantages.

Carawaystick

MBSnr wrote: »

Not address but per tax payer surely? Anyhow there's about 2m tax payers, so the same maths applies... I did throw this in many posts back in July. I assumed it would cost €50m (eventually once the true figures 'come out') over ten years with 1.9m odd tax payers.

1.9m tax payers. 50m/1.9m=€26 ea. or €2.60 per yr.

There are more taxpyers than natural persons in the state. Pretty much every natural person resident is a taxpayer, apart from those who haven't spent pocket money on sweets yet.

MBSnr

https://twitter.com/autoaddress/status/661169507478687745

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

I have no idea what your point above is. The reason why Garmin took loc8 was because there was no postcode for Ireland, and loc8 convinced them that loc8 would be it (de-facto if not de-jure)

The (other) point I think you are missing is that no postcode has any value, unless it is adopted by users. That is why nobody would just implement some random geocode on satnavs. As I said above, loc8 convinced garmin (and Enterprise Ireland) that they were the ones. But, the problem is - nobody can compete with the state when it comes to infratstructure like postcodes. loc8 gambled that the state would give up, but the state didn't and now loc8 is in trouble. Garmin backed the wrong horse. Though frankly, it's hardly that big a deal for them.

satnavs weren't in decline when garmin adopted loc8.

Anyway, we are straying from the point I pulled you up on :- that geocodes have some advantages over postcodes based on databases. It's absurd to argue that they have no advantages.

You haven't "pulled" me on anything, that wasn't the conversation we were having, it started with you trying to claim geo codes were free and database codes weren't, I pulled you on that and you changed the argument to suit you.

I never claimed or said anything about disadvantages, where did I argue that with you? I didn't.

My argument with you is: geo code would not necessarily be free and geo code would not necessarily be adopted faster. They were my 2 points.

Nothing do do with advantages or disadvantages of either code. You must be having that argument in your head, because it's not with me.

plodder

ukoda wrote: »

You haven't "pulled" me on anything, that wasn't the conversation we were having, it started with you trying to claim geo codes were free and database codes weren't, I pulled you on that and you changed the argument to suit you.

This was the post that started the conversation: #8540

me wrote:

ukoda wrote:

It's getting a bit tiresome now with people claiming "no need for a database" as some kind of advantage to a postcode.

But it is an advantage. There are different things that a postcode can be used for and arguably the most important ones don't require a database (eg navigation). And in fact postcodes that only have a database (like Eircode) can only navigate you to locations in the database, whereas gecodes allow you to navigate anywhere.

So, the conversation did not start as you describe it above.

You can have the last word if you like. I've better things to be doing, but the above shows you're continuously and mischievously misquoting people (not just me). And I say mischievously because you're cute enough to zone in on actual points that help your argument when they arise. But, it's continuous obfuscation and water-muddying the rest of the time. Good luck now.

ukoda

plodder wrote: »

This was the post that started the conversation: #8540

So, the conversation did not start as you describe it above.

You can have the last word if you like. I've better things to be doing, but the above shows you're continuously and mischievously misquoting people (not just me). And I say mischievously because you're cute enough to zone in on actual points that help your argument when they arise. But, it's continuous obfuscation and water-muddying the rest of the time. Good luck now.

My points have always been clear and about the topic. You are the one choosing to have a go at me and labelling me a "mischievous"

My points again. All on topic and all clear.
- having a database isn't a disadvantage
- having a geo code doesn't mean it's free
- having a geo code doesn't mean faster adoption

You're the one who muddied the water with your inaccurate statement of "if it was a geo code it would be free"

If you've nothing to say but insults to me, then it's best you do go off and do your "better things"

BowWow

Eoghan Harris has an article today in the Sindo.

Highlights below:

Quote:

Unlike Eircode, Loc8 is not limited to just letterboxes and does not need access to a database to use. It is a free standard feature on Garmin satnavs.

Nothing free about it on my Garmin - had to pay to have it added to my Garmin...

Bray Head

plodder wrote: »

I don't know what to say to this. 38 million is still 38 million. Think about what else it could be spent on. How many teachers or nurses could be funded by that money, for instance?

This is a fallacious argument. Ireland already has a passable health and education system.

Suppose you are a development expert. You arrive on a small Pacific island which has a 95% literacy rate but raw sewage on the streets.

They have some public money to spend and are considering either a waste water treatment plant or more primary school teachers.

What do you advise them?

Calina

Bray Head wrote: »

This is a fallacious argument. Ireland already has a passable health and education system.

Suppose you are a development expert. You arrive on a small Pacific island which has a 95% literacy rate but raw sewage on the streets.

They have some public money to spend and are considering either a waste water treatment plant or more primary school teachers.

What do you advise them?

Are you equating a non life essential postcode with sewage treatment? Because ireland doesn't come close to 95 per cent literacy and the country's numeracy scores aren't great. In Ireland I would put the money into education. In your mythical island I'd put it into wastewater treatment. If I were building a postcode I would not have built eircode. We may be stuck with it as the official postcode but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

marmurr1916

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think your maths is out. €38m divided by 4.7m is €8 not 80 cents. Over 10 years that is 80 cents per year. Quite a difference.

Also €27 m divided by 4.7m is €5.74c. or 57 cents per year. Again quite a difference.

It should be calculated per address not per person, so the first figure becomes €38m divided by 2.2m addresses, so that works out as €17.7 per address. I think that is a very high figure, and add to that the licence fee income and it very high indeed.

Yeah, you're right. But it's still a tiny sum of money. It's about 1.6 cents per week per person. I don't see why it should be calculated per address. An address doesn't pay anything. And even if it was it would be €1.77 per address per year, not €17.70. That's the 10 year cost. The licence cost is not imposed on anyone - it's a choice that businesses or individuals can make.

marmurr1916

ukoda wrote: »

And which of those companies is having the code forced on them? And which ones are now banned from continuing to use a geo code?

None of them, I'm still failing to see who is being "forced to pay" as you claim.

The weekly cost per person over 10 years is about 1.6 cents assuming an average population of 4.75 million over the period.

This is a trivial sum which has no pact on anyone's quality of life.

marmurr1916

Bray Head wrote: »

This is a fallacious argument. Ireland already has a passable health and education system.

Suppose you are a development expert. You arrive on a small Pacific island which has a 95% literacy rate but raw sewage on the streets.

They have some public money to spend and are considering either a waste water treatment plant or more primary school teachers.

What do you advise them?

€3.8 million per year equates to a maximum of 100 extra teachers or nurses per year if all the other costs apart from basic salaries are taken into account.

The median salary for staff nurses in Ireland is over €31k per year to which must be added the cost of training nurses, recruitment, management costs, employers PRSI, employers pension contributions, annual increments (i.e. pay increases) etc.

According to this, the starting salary for teachers is close to €28k per annum for teachers recruited after 2011. Add in increments and extras for qualifications, plus all the additional costs (similar as for nurses) and an average of €38k per teacher per year over 10 years seems a reasonable estimate:

http://www.education.ie/en/Education-Staff/Information/Payroll-Financial-Information/Salary-Scales/

There are over 5,000 state funded schools so an extra 100 teachers would have little or no impact.

In any case:

MORE THAN 1,700 new teachers will be taken on next September to cope with the growing pupil numbers.

The announcement was made in the Budget this afternoon by Public Expenditure Minister Brendan Howlin.

The majority of the posts, 920, will go to mainstream teaching posts while there will be 420 new resource teachers and 365 new special needs assistants.

Education has been allocated €8.3 billion, this is the first time since 2008 that the education budget has increased.

http://www.thejournal.ie/1000-new-teachers-1722979-Oct2014/

http://utv.ie/News/2015/02/03/100-new-Irish-nursing-jobs-to-be-created-27906

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/budget-2016-600-gardai-hired-6628536

There's no evidence that the cost of eircodes has had any impact on recruitment in the public sector.

Apart from that, most of the €38 million is likely to be spent on employing people in Ireland. So the net effect on annual employment paid for by the state (whether people are employed directly by the state or employed by private companies with state contracts) is likely to be positive.

Bray Head

Calina wrote: »

Are you equating a non life essential postcode with sewage treatment? Because ireland doesn't come close to 95 per cent literacy and the country's numeracy scores aren't great. In Ireland I would put the money into education. In your mythical island I'd put it into wastewater treatment. If I were building a postcode I would not have built eircode. We may be stuck with it as the official postcode but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

I said Ireland's education system was passable. There are of course big improvements that can be made, and most of them don't actually involve spending extra money. But that's a debate for another day and another thread.

My point was you have a hypothetical choice between:
1) spending money on an education system that is already of reasonable quality
2) a piece of basic public infrastructure which does not exist at all

In the scheme of the €50-odd billion spent by the government every year, spending €3.8m (<0.01%) on a piece of useful public infrastructure does not seem unreasonable to me. Considering that every other OECD country has a postcode system.

This point is entirely separate to eircode design btw.

plodder

Bray Head wrote: »

I said Ireland's education system was passable. There are of course big improvements that can be made, and most of them don't actually involve spending extra money. But that's a debate for another day and another thread.

My point was you have a hypothetical choice between:
1) spending money on an education system that is already of reasonable quality
2) a piece of basic public infrastructure which does not exist at all

In the scheme of the €50-odd billion spent by the government every year, spending €3.8m (<0.01%) on a piece of useful public infrastructure does not seem unreasonable to me. Considering that every other OECD country has a postcode system.

This point is entirely separate to eircode design btw.

The point is that it behoves government to spend all public moneys as prudently as possible, and that just because there is a strong need for a particular piece of infrastructure (like a postcode), that does not justify wastage. That is of course a separate point as to whether Eircode is such a waste. It's more to counter the "it's only x cents per head of population" type of argument. Every wasted investment from e-voting to PPARS etc. can be reduced to such a "it only cost x euro per head" argument.

Bray Head

plodder wrote: »

The point is that it behoves government to spend all public moneys as prudently as possible, and that just because there is a strong need for a particular piece of infrastructure (like a postcode), that does not justify wastage. That is of course a separate point as to whether Eircode is such a waste. It's more to counter the "it's only x cents per head of population" type of argument. Every wasted investment from e-voting to PPARS etc. can be reduced to such a "it only cost x euro per head" argument.

I agree totally. Your post here seemed to imply that any spending on a postcode project was unjustified though.

I don't know enough about the project design to have an opinion on whether eircode was good value or not.

GetWithIt

For me Loc8 have lost out not necessarily because their solution is in any way inferior or because of any stitch-up, but because they aimed too low.

What 3 Words is the best solution I have seen in this space and are so precisely because they have not limited themselves to any particular geographic area or tendering process. They've just gone out and solved a problem.

The Loc8 solution is not far removed from the W3W solution but, to my eyes, they just let themselves got sucked into a typical - and entirely predictable - Irish Govt IT mess.

Time to move on. IT is fairly ruthless in picking winners and losers.

oscarBravo

GetWithIt wrote: »

What 3 Words is the best solution I have seen in this space...

Seriously? You think a company will use "loft, subliminal, wrestling" as the postcode on their business correspondence?

MBSnr

oscarBravo wrote: »

Seriously? You think a company will use "loft, subliminal, wrestling" as the postcode on their business correspondence?

My companies location genuinely includes the words "unleashed" and "lazy"....

Calina

marmurr1916 wrote: »

There are over 5,000 state funded schools so an extra 100 teachers would have little or no impact.

They have the potential to have enormous impact at local level. I think that should not be forgotten.

ukoda

https://twitter.com/gisireland/status/661559117279068160





New service from OSI, has full eircode integration

marmurr1916

Calina wrote: »

They have the potential to have enormous impact at local level. I think that should not be forgotten.

Neither should the fact that despite the rubbish talked on this thread, close to 2,000 extra teachers/SNAs will be hired under the 2016 budget provisions.

There's no evidence from reality that the cost of eircodes has had any impact on budgets for hiring or paying public sector workers.