ukoda wrote: » It's extremely relevant as it is the law. A private limited company is a legal entity in the eyes of the law and it is irrelevant that they are an agent of the state. The law does not change. They can of course keep it private for the reasons I've outlined. Can you say its ludicrous for a builders providers to not publish how much they charged that builder for the order of bricks they made? It's none of your business in the eyes of the law. And if they can't keep it a secret... Then where is it? TomTom and Garmin have indicated they will implement, where is that contract published?
plodder wrote: » Situations not comparable. You keep side-stepping the fact that Eircode is a monopoly effectively (as the supplier of the one and only state sanctioned postcode). Where is it? Well the reason for this discussion was my suggestion that it possibly doesn't exist. I can't think of a good reason why Eircode would not announce the fact they had signed a deal with google or other navigation company. So, my suspicion is they haven't.
plodder wrote: » There is general agreement also that it is not suitable for applications like navigation.
ukoda wrote: » Garmin announced publicly on Twitter that they are implementing it. TomTom made a statement to the Irish Times that they are implementing it. Both companies would need to be lying if your argument is valid. Do you think that's the case?
I'm not side stepping the monopoly piece at all. I'm telling you it makes no difference. You simply cannot force any private company to publish details of their deals with other companies. It could only be forced to do so by the courts with a valid reason as part of a criminal investigation or other such reason.
plodder wrote: » They said something like they will work with their mapping provider. No commitments to dates were made. I disagree. It would be a bizarre situation if the state could offload important public functions into a private company and then claim that company could keep important information private as a result. And to repeat (one last time). It's not the individual deals that need to be published, but the framework - so that other potential customers can decide if it suits them, and in this case that the public can see if this important public service is working efficiently.
ukoda wrote: » It's directly related, the more cars that use the road the more tax that's taken in to maintain them. I cannot understand how people could possibly argue for the state to pay for eircode use in taxation. It is one of the worst arguements I've ever heard. In a pay for use model, the user pays a fee to be able to use eircode. Thus enabling them to make savings which in turn will pay for the original use of eircode. The business in question is then in a net profit scenario, the cost of eircode is paid back in efficiencies and they make extra money. It's a win win for them. If they can't justify the spend on eircode and think they won't make a return on it, then they are free not to use it. You're suggestion is that the state is saddled with the cost of maintaining eircode and every business gets it for free. Meaning the business makes more profit and the state pays for them to do it. Honestly the pay per end user model is ideal for eircode. Suggesting the tax payer should be straddled with the cost when in fact it could be self financing shows a complete lack of understanding of commerce and business, it's honestly one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Option 1: let the taxpayer pay for all of it and businesses pocket the profit at a cost to the state. Option 2: let those who need it, pay for it and let them pocket the profits from efficiencies and cost the state nothing How someone could advocate for option 1 is mind boggling to me. It's the equivalent of someone saying, ah sur businesses need to be able to send letters, so let's just fund An Post from the state coffers, cos sur it'd be unfair to charge companies who send letters.
Sam Russell wrote: » The state pays for road signs so that the general population can find their way around. However, the brown signs are not paid for by the state - those are the ones that point to B&B locations, tourist attractions, etc. and are of interest to commercial use. There can be no better example as to how Eircode should work. It is its lack of hierarchy and its random structure that makes this difficult - but if the structure was different, then free use by the general public but paid for by commercial users may have been possible. To me, it has always been about monetising the product to be at least self financing, and possibly revenue earning. Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I have seen, I do not think so - with all the delay, dodgy tendering, complete variance from the design rules, etc. etc.
ukoda wrote: » the thing about the law is, it doesn't care if you disagree with it. It is what it is regardless of your opinion of it.
And no one said it could keep it a secret from the state, as effectively their contract is with the state. , it does not have to provide it to the public. If you ask them as Joe public they will simply tell you no. Try it, ask eircode, they have a contact us section on their website, ask them for the frame work of their deal with Google, go ahead and see if they will confirm or deny its existence or provide you with any details of it. And then come back here and tell me how they cannot possibly keep it a secret.
plodder wrote: » I might just do that. An FOI to DCENR might be the thing.
ukoda wrote: » Why don't you just go straight to eircode. You're the one staying they can't possibly keep it a secret, you say it's ludicrous to think they can, you say they have to disclose the framework. Why not simply ask for it so? If you're so convinced they cannot possibly deny you this information? Email them. hello@eircode.ie By the way, a commercial entity (I.e. Capita bsiiness services Ireland ltd trading as eircode) is exempt from an FOI. There are only 4 companies operating on behalf of the state that aren't exempt from FOI, eircode/capita is not one of them.
To me, it has always been about monetising the product to be at least self financing, and possibly revenue earning. Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I have seen, I do not think so - with all the delay, dodgy tendering, complete variance from the design rules, etc. etc.
plodder wrote: » Considering it required a renegotiation of the license for geodirectory, it had to go through DCENR. So, if it exists, they will have it.
ukoda wrote: » Geodirectory (An Post GeoDirectory LIMITED) is also a commercial entity and therefore is exempt from FOI requests. Unfortunately for you, An Post is also not one of the 4 companies that aren't exempt from FOI. Send in the FOI if you want, but I promise you that you'll get a standard letter back stating your request was denied due to eircode and geodirectory being commercial entities and therefore exempt from FOI.
plodder wrote: » The details of the original agreement with geodirectory are already in the public domain. So, I don't see why any updated agreement couldn't be obtained.
ukoda wrote: » Because there was no original agreement with Google. The agreement you speak of is the agreement around the fees payable to geodirectory for the use of its database. It's a different thing and was made public by choice. What a corporation was charged for its commercial contract with eircode is a different thing altogether.
BoatMad wrote: » The goal was self financing, and thats laudable. as for "dodgy tendering, complete variance from the design rule" care to point to proper facts ( and not hearsay)
Principles to be taken into account The principles that have been applied to the development of postcodes were set out in the ComReg report in 2005. “There are a number of complex technical issues that need to be taken into account in designing postcodes. However, it is desirable to set out some general principles that underline the work being undertaken moving forward. • It is a public postcode that is proposed, not a “hidden” or technical code. • It should be structured, at least to the level of specific areas within each county. • It must be easily memorised so that it will gain maximum usage. • It must solve the issue of non-unique addresses without asking people to change the name of their townland, parish or county. • It must be neutral as between operators. In particular it must enable the postcodes to be aggregated for operational purposes in whatever way each operator desires. Just because An Post has decided to deliver mail for East Clare from Limerick doesn’t mean that another operator cannot decide to use Ennis as its base for the whole of Clare – and the postcode shouldn’t ask the addressee whose affinity is with Clare to use a different county name in the address. • The approach to funding should ideally be self financing /minimal cost to operators and government. • The working group will also have to agree “ownership” issues.” (ComReg report, 2005)5 To this list we would add one more: - that the system of postcodes must be appropriate to the needs of a developing smart economy and that future proofing should be an essential yardstick. In our experience it is important is to ensure that the public, business and statutory sectors are informed and consulted about the introduction of postcodes. At this stage, the public is generally unaware of the changes planned and many organizations have not given full consideration to their implications. The principles outlined are laudatory; however there is a genuine fear among experts in the field that these principles could be used to prevent the emergence of the most advanced technological solution.
Dodgy tendering?http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland...ng-321074.htmlhttp://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/04/28/...postcode-saga/ Report on Post Code.
Recommendations: 20 1. The option of a postcode system based on a unique identifier system should be taken up in view of its range of benefits using the best, most up to date technology.
plodder wrote: » But, if the supplier had a monopoly then he might be required to publish his price list.
ukoda wrote: » My points are after the * below. In my view eircode meets all the criteria • It is a public postcode that is proposed, not a “hidden” or technical code. *i can find any eircode publicly on a website.The random part of eircode is hidden, and therefore not public. • It should be structured, at least to the level of specific areas within each county. *its structured to postal areas within each countyThe routing keys don't align with county boundaries, and many of them straddle multiple counties (eg H91 Galway, Mayo, Clare) • It must be easily memorised so that it will gain maximum usage. *i remember mine and considered it easy to memorise.Your positivity is admirable, but random codes are not generally considered easy to memorise. • It must solve the issue of non-unique addresses without asking people to change the name of their townland, parish or county. *eircode does solve non unique address problem. They don't ask people to change addressCorrect. Yea! • It must be neutral as between operators. In particular it must enable the postcodes to be aggregated for operational purposes in whatever way each operator desires. Just because An Post has decided to deliver mail for East Clare from Limerick doesn’t mean that another operator cannot decide to use Ennis as its base for the whole of Clare – and the postcode shouldn’t ask the addressee whose affinity is with Clare to use a different county name in the address. *Clearly explained to everyone they can continue to use whatever address they currently use. Any other operator can use SAC to group and distribute whatever way they want.Partly correct. Though it follows An Post's bizarre delivery structure. So, it most definitely is not neutral. • The approach to funding should ideally be self financing /minimal cost to operators and government. *eircode is self financingSelf financing, but minimal cost to operators? • The working group will also have to agree “ownership” issues.” *the state owns it. Private company contracted to operate it.Correct.
Does Capita have a monopoly? On what? Selling ECAD and ECAF?
ukoda wrote: » The random part is hidden???? The last part of my neighbours code is FG7P, my other neighbour is NAF6, who are they hidden from???
plodder wrote: » LOL. You're going to have to make an effort to understand what they meant by hidden or technical. Do you think it meant that in some designs they wouldn't tell people what their postcode was, or that it would be hidden by the Easter Bunny and we'd have to go searching for it?
• It is a public postcode that is proposed, not a “hidden” or technical code. *i can find any eircode publicly on a website.
The random part of eircode is hidden, and therefore not public.
• It should be structured, at least to the level of specific areas within each county. *its structured to postal areas within each county The routing keys don't align with county boundaries, and many of them straddle multiple counties (eg H91 Galway, Mayo, Clare)
• It must be easily memorised so that it will gain maximum usage. *i remember mine and considered it easy to memorise. Your positivity is admirable, but random codes are not generally considered easy to memorise.
• It must be neutral as between operators. In particular it must enable the postcodes to be aggregated for operational purposes in whatever way each operator desires. Just because An Post has decided to deliver mail for East Clare from Limerick doesn’t mean that another operator cannot decide to use Ennis as its base for the whole of Clare – and the postcode shouldn’t ask the addressee whose affinity is with Clare to use a different county name in the address. *Clearly explained to everyone they can continue to use whatever address they currently use. Any other operator can use SAC to group and distribute whatever way they want. Partly correct. Though it follows An Post's bizarre delivery structure. So, it most definitely is not neutra
• The approach to funding should ideally be self financing /minimal cost to operators and government. *eircode is self financing Self financing, but minimal cost to operators?
plodder wrote: » You can't tell anything about those two codes just from looking at them. In that sense, their meaning is hidden. If the codes were FG7P and FGF6 and the FG meant a specific small area, then the FG part would not be hidden. Its meaning would be in the public domain. If the codes were FG7P and FG7Q, then even the last two characters wouldn't be completely hidden because the codes are sequential. Even if a postcode is open, public and not hidden in this sense, there is still monetisable value in the address file. BTW. Were those real codes? Someone who has access to the ECAD can probably locate your house from the information you've given.
BoatMad wrote: » eircodes were not meant to add any additional granularity over that already existing in GeoDirectories , stop trying to present eircode as something it was not designed to do
plodder wrote: » At least you (in the previous post) are making an actual argument against what the postcode board recommended. Ukoda was claiming that it does what they recommended. You can't both be right. I've no idea what you're trying to say in this post. Personally, I think the recommendations were sound, and shouldn't have been overruled without significant justification.
BoatMad wrote: » Eirocde was designed to add a unique identifier to GeoDirectories , thats ALL. one can criticise the structure and makeup of GeoDirectories sure, and there is an argument that we should have started afresh , but Eircode cannot add anymore spacial granularity then already exists in Geodirectories Note that the Oireachtas committee, while reprinting the CERs comments , actually went on to recommend a unique identifier form of postcode, which is exactly want eircode is. Your arguments continually refer to the lack of hierarchy , more specifically user inspectable hierarchy. This is a very outdated wayoflooking at " lookup " codes in a modern computerised society . Look at the way mobile numbers have digressed from being location identifiable or even network identifiable, the number today means nothing and thats the correct method , as can be seen by the repeated efforts to modify land line hierarchical numbers to accommodate growth again, a completely uninspectable code is actually preferable , let all cases of groupings or pseudo-groupings be done at a computer level. in Eircodes case, if there is a case to assemble small area data , then this is easily added to GeoDirectories rather then baking it into a code
