plodder wrote: » It was 4,500. So, that would cost £180. It would be more economic to just buy a few maps and spend some hours looking up addresses and pin pointing them on the maps. So, eircode wouldn't be much use in this situation imo.
Carawaystick wrote: » ~Another defect is the delay in getting an eircode for new builds. They should be allocated on grant of pp, to allow deliveries of construction materiel. Having a postcode and only using it for letters is silly.
gctest50 wrote: » How many hours do think that'll take then ? There's a diddlyeye dance at the crossroads n stuff this evening etc
12Phase wrote: » Plodder, while the phone number would give you a unique ID, beyond the actual area code, the local number's first few digits no longer mean much as numbers are just assigned to end points almost like the way URLs are ultimately pointing towards an IP address and that can be changed depending on how the DNS database is setup. In older technology, the number was actually used directly to route the call as the network had little intelligence. That hasn't been the case for a long time. If you are on any provider that isn't using OpenEir exchanges, you could have any number in any given area code. When you dial a number, the exchange actually performs a look up equivalent to what a browser does with a DNS server to figure out how to route the call. Also, the % of households with active voice landlines is shrinking every day.
ukoda wrote: » You've missed the point. I said they CAN do it. Which you said they couldn't, and you were wrong. It's up to them what they WANT to do.
No one has to licence a product to locate a postcodes location.
plodder wrote: » No, you've missed the point. The point was this is a good example of where postcodes could have been useful, but eircode is impractical, not that it cannot be used.
gctest50 wrote: » They're routing Switzerland = about 15000 sq miles
ukoda wrote: » By your own words the impractical part is the work they've have to do after they got the postcode data. Even if it was free. Someone would have to sit down and plot it all out and do all that work. Yet another example of you trying to attribute an issue to eircode that doesn't fly.
gctest50 wrote: » They're routing codes, doesn't matter, put magic Eircode into magic website and it'll show you where it is
Your neighbours mobile phone number probably bears no relationship to yours. If you don't have your neighbours mobile phone number, you'll have fun trying to call him on it.
plodder wrote: » You don't have to plot anything. You just put them all in a spreadsheet, sort them and count the number of codes in each area. Anyone who knows spreadsheets could do it. Even if they paid the money to get the SACs out of ECAD, they would have to do this anyway.
Sam Russell wrote: » That is a nonsense argument. ...... .
ukoda wrote: » So it's the same amount of work either way? A while ago you were off on a rant about them having to write software. At least it's dawned on you now that they wouldn't have to do that, just a simple sort by whatever field they wanted.
So we're back to the issue you started with, "they wouldn't be able to get access to a licence" which you were wrong about. So what's you point now? The entire the process is too impractical and I'm stupid for saying it could be done? Or the process is the same but you thought they couldn't get a licence and now you realise they don't need one? Are you going to go back to talk about the cost now?
plodder wrote: » The companies that you mentioned earlier offer APIs. That means you need to obtain software that uses those APIs (as well as pay the money). You're wrong. They do need a license. When you click on the T&Cs of a website you are agreeing to a license. They need a license. They need additional software (beyond a spreadsheet) and most importantly they need to pay over 200 euros. With the UK postcode they could do it for free, and I would guess every other postcode in the world that doesn't use a hidden random code which needs to be decoded with a licensed product. This is like the time you said SUSI had to be saving two hours work for each application by using Eircode and it turned out to be 2 minutes. You're not fooling anyone and I am tired of this conversation (for now). Have the last word if you wish.
plodder wrote: » I'm not saying everyone should be able to use it at no cost.
plodder wrote: » ...most importantly they need to pay over 200 euros. With the UK postcode they could do it for free...
plodder wrote: » ......... This is like the time you said SUSI had to be saving two hours work for each application by using Eircode and it turned out to be 2 minutes. You're not fooling anyone and I am tired of this conversation (for now). Have the last word if you wish.
oscarBravo wrote: » I wish you'd make up your mind.
gctest50 wrote: 2 minutes x about 80,000 times = more or less 2,500 hours saved
plodder wrote: » I wish you would contribute something of substance to the discussion. Correct ... and your point is?
gctest50 wrote: » 2,500 hours is a huge saving, and this year they were still using googlemaps Huge savings (maybe next year ?) when they can bypass that part
plodder wrote: » It is a big saving, and it's typical of this forum (and some posters) that we got bogged down in an argument over something that was impossible, and was a simple mistake in a report, and ended up casting doubt over the whole thing. But, there you go.
plodder wrote: » On the off chance that these comments really weren't understood.I'm not saying everyone should be able to use it at no cost. = There should be some datasets that are free of charge (eg one that contains each Eircode, and the small area code for each). Other datasets like the ECAF and ECAD should remain pay for use....most importantly they need to pay over 200 euros. With the UK postcode they could do it for free... = This is the kind of usage that should accommodated free of charge because people can extract that information from postcodes in other countries at no cost. There is no inconsistency between the two statements in bold. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding. Thank you for your attention!
oscarBravo wrote: » That's somewhat clearer, thanks. Would you accept that what you've described is not an inherent flaw in the design of Eircodes, but a limitation of the current licensing model?
Accordingly, would you accept that remarks like "there is literally no benefit in using it" and "tits on a bull" are objectively untrue, factually inaccurate, and contribute nothing of substance to the discussion?
plodder wrote: » Can you really separate the licensing/business model from the technical design?.
ukoda wrote: » They could release the codes and geo's for free. They could even release the entire ECAD for free if they wanted. Nothing in the technical design of eircode would prevent that.
clewbays wrote: » I expect the licensing agreement with GeoDirectory would prevent that otherwise there would no revenue stream for An Post and OSi from GeoDirectory.
HelgaWard wrote: » Using Eircodes constantly at work and have to say they are very useful.
ukoda wrote: » Yes. They could make eircode licence free tomorrow because the technical design does not require it to have a licence. youve made this point yourself numerous times. They could release the codes and geo's for free. They could even release the entire ECAD for free if they wanted. Nothing in the technical design of eircode would prevent that.
plodder wrote: » Except for the small problem that Eircode is dependent on Geodirectory and their license with geodirectory doesn't allow that. If they can solve that problem then yes, they could make it license free. This is why a lot of these projects which in reality span multiple state agencies fail, because they need a level of political engagement to bang heads together, which doesn't happen.
plodder wrote: » Perhaps, but I really think these are off the cuff remarks not intended to be taken literally.
