Talk:Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland/Archive 2

Irish Post Codes Article Is a forgotten Orphan
Yet another 3 months have passed since my last comment on this Irish Post Codes article. At that time I went into detail on what I considered incorrect in the article. I also suggested (not for the first time) that the article should be removed in favour of a complete rewrite.

As expected nothing has happened - mostly because those who share my feelings are afraid to touch the article or even comment because a gate keeper who calls himself a "Censor" is stalking in this cyberspace.

It is now clear to anyone that there is no budget allocation for a National Postcode system in Ireland in 2009 - easily checked on line - making the article even more embarassingly out of date.

Again it has come as no suprise to me to note that only when I try to contribute does anyone take an interest in this article - otherwise there is no interest in it at all - it is now a forgotten orphan and an embarrassment to Ireland's input into Wikipedia!

This statement appears on the top of the article made on 20th June 2008 last ( i.e. 6 months ago!). "A major contributor to this article or its creator appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (June 20, 2008)"

Nothing has happened - does nobody care?

Garydubh (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * it is now a forgotten orphan and an embarrassment to Ireland's input into Wikipedia!
 * Hardly since it is on my watchlist but we can't report news of updates that hasn't occurred.
 * It is now clear to anyone that there is no budget allocation for a National Postcode system in Ireland in 2009
 * Wouldn't any expenditure be mostly be in An Post to implement it rather that general Government spending .Garda40 (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not an orphan as can be seem from this page. An Wikipedia orphan is a page that has no other articles that link to it.


 * New Year's greetings Garydubh, surprise, surprise, it's me!!! Perhaps you have already forgotten that back in September you were asked if you would collaborate in a rewrite without pushing your conflict of interest, POV or choose to put the article up for deletion if you are so annoyed by it. You have refused to do either but you continue to criticise and be uncivil without EVEN ONE constructive comments. Remember that "no news is good news", and we have no news, so nothing has changed unless you have a verifiable source for something new we don't know about. ww2censor (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Liberalisation in the Postal market begins this year - any canges to matters postal will be implemented for the benefit of all participants, new and old, by an independent organisation. So this idea which is maintained on here that An Post makes the decisions is completely incorrect! An Post may of course use Post Codes but they do not want them and do not require them to sort mail. They were advised by the Royal Mail Postal Consultancy to go with Geodirectory and OCR 25 years ago and this they have done ! However, new players will need some form of Codes - not so much for sorting but more for delivery - that is why GPS Ireland designed PON Codes. So getting back to your comments - it will not be up to An Post and therefore it will be up to the Dept of Communications to come up with the estimated Euro 15 million for a National System - there is no such allocation in Dept Of Comms budget for this year. Its on the web - have a look.


 * At this stage - the issue is not about reporting news of updates - it is about getting rid of all the comment about a proposed post code to be implemented by Jan 2008 and proposals going to Government etc etc - this is all rubbish and obviously incorrect. I already have highlighted the issues I see with the article. Nothing in it is my input - yet at the top if suggests a rewrite due to possible conflict of interest - could this be referring to the person who awakens on here only every 3 months when I comment!


 * I have no problem collaborating with someone to make things right but only with someone that does not choose to operate on here anonymously and whose operating name does not suggest an intent to filter content.Garydubh (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Every time you come here you are complaining but offer nothing other than the same old stuff. You are still being rude and refuse to drop the POV pushing of your own product. You also know full well that anonymous usernames are allowed, used by the majority of users, and bear no relationship to any authority on this wiki, so stop pushing that old cart; bring it to user names for comment if you are so concerned about it. I have every right to revert and delete unsourced and COI edits by anyone, including you, because they are against policy. Where are your verifiable sources for the comments you made above? As previously you have not given any. Provide them and we will start to revise the article, but remember pushing your own product is absolutely not acceptable due to your conflict of interest but you know that already because others have told you previously. Stay civil.


 * Do you have anything constructive to contribute, such as a report on what liberalisation is likely to bring this year? Comreg has nothing about postcodes that I can find, maybe you know where it is. There is nothing useful to this topic or even geocodes anywhere on their website other than a five year old presentation on postcodes. Even their latest Postal Strategy Statement (2008-2010) nor in their The Universal Postal Service: A working definition. So show us something verifiable we can work all with.


 * BTW, did you even look at the article? There is no COI template there anymore. I removed it because your COI edits were removed by another editor. For now there dose not seem to be any COI text in the article. ww2censor (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "A major contributor to this article or its creator appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (June 20, 2008)"
 * ..............- very strange!!!! Have just noted that this banner which has been in place since 20th June 2008 and which I qouted yesterday 3rd Jan 2009 as it was still in place has just been removed. No significant content edit to the article has occured since July 2008 - yet someone has suddenly changed their mind - perhaps it was forgotten about until now - more evidence that this article is  genrally forgotten and redundant.


 * It is also strange that the Banner would suggest that the article's "creator" may have had a COI - if so should not the whole article be now removed for a rewrite or was it just a spurious allegation? If the creator or controller worked for An Post or another Government/Semi State agency responsible for matters Postal - would this consitute a conflict of interest as alleged?


 * Its hard to know really when persons are operating here anonymously - so it really does need to be removed and rewritten by someone who is verifiably independent as I have suggested previously!!!! Garydubh (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"Independent postcode system" section removed
I've removed this section. This article is about the official postal address system in use in Ireland -  Secretary-whbt, if you think that would qualify as an article in its own right under WP's notability criteria, then request that one be written (WP:COI prevents you from writing it). Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Bastun - You removed this entry on the basis that it was written by User:Garydubh - it was not - you are completely incorrect - please talk to the user who made the entry directly and avoid unfounded and unverified allegations in the future - doubt if you made any effort to check this out - just jumped to an assumption.

Furthermore allegations that that user had COI entries in this aricle are also incorrect - the user has made no contribution to discussion on this article since Jan 2009 and has had not entry in the article since April 2008 - you used this as a justification for blocking the user - again completley incorrect and unfounded. The user in question has no further interest in your article.

You made reference to a personal name in association with the accused user - the personal name is not a user name - do not use it here again.

You made reference to a company name in a derogatory manner implying that there was some issue with the work of the company - do not do so again.

Finally, if your article is about the official postcode system of Ireland - then the article should be removed as there is no official postcode system in Ireland yet and the provision of such is subject to an open tender comeptition which your discussion may prejudice and undermine.

Please do not mention relevant user name, personal name, company name or product name on this article or related discussion without the permission of the relevant owners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.108.125 (talk • contribs)

Wow! I made what I thought would be a useful contribution to the Republic of Ireland Postcodes article and what a mare's nest I now find myself in. My style or content appears to have been attributed to a user called garrydubh. I have no connection with him or anyone else in this matter. My earlier Wiki contributions have been on sailing and Wexford Harbour! I am a retired soil scientist who worked in mapping and GIS for almost 20 years before I retired. I was in the public service and I have absolutely no COI whatever. I will leave the dust settle for a week or two and submit a carefully considered piece on the subject and see how this goes down. In the meantime, could the editors please remove material suggesting that someone else wrote my contribution.

--93.107.83.250 (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC) PS To avoid more confusion, above paragraph was written by Secretary-whbtc (which is a boat club in Wexford)! Secretary-whbtc (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Secretary-whbtc, please see here where I've asked for a check that your account is not associated with Garydubh's. In relation to "I will leave the dust settle for a week or two and submit a carefully considered piece on the subject and see how this goes down." - from what he's written at AN/I, Garydubh seems to be of the opinion that my removing the material from here and my comments at AN/I will somehow prejudice the tendering process for a postcode system.  I'd be of the opinion that having his company/product included in a general article on the postal system in Ireland (i.e., not on a postcode system!), when no other company/product is included, would be prejudicial.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Government Postcode Plan on hold
As a result of Seanad Debate on October 21 October highlighting an independent alternative and demands by Liz McManus Labour Party for cancellation of Government Postcode plan - and also because of An Post Union opposition and the current budgetary crisis, the Irish Government National PostCode Plan now appears on indefinite hold. Dubhtail (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Garydubh's company gets a mention in the debate.  Pity it doesn't look like good news for them.  The first source directly contradicts what you say above, User:Dubhtail
 * Minister Eamon Ryan: "It will take us most of next year to manage that system and therefore I expect the code to be introduced towards the end of next year or early in 2011."
 * And in response to a plaintive question "What about the GPS system I mentioned earlier?", the Minister says:
 * "Regarding Senator O’Reilly’s question, in the examination that was done of a variety of different options, cognisance was taken of the Data Protection Commissioner’s views on this issue. There was a concern that if we have a code which brings one right down to a specific readily identifiable address, data protection issues might arise. We must manage and protect people’s freedom from intrusive mail or inappropriate identification systems that could arise in a postal service with specifics such as XY co-ordinates which give a location down to a specific house.
 * The benefit of the postal code system being developed, as I understand it, is that the simple, alphanumeric, six-digit number will give one a postal code down to ten or 20 houses, depending on whether it is a country or an urban area, but there will be sufficient additional fields within the data system established to work such a code that an additional digit can give one much more specific locational details. That will allow one apply that locational code in a similar way to the advantages one would get from a GPS XY co-ordinate code. The code we are devising has the dual benefits of a postal code which does not infringe in a public way on people’s right to privacy but which can be developed further to have those locational code characteristics that one gets off a GPS. That is the reason I am supportive of it because I believe it does both tasks."
 * Will check out the other two links later... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Will you Bastun? - that'll be great - thanks!Dubhtail (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Adopted format
It might be helpful to add more information to the article about the details of the format that the government is now committed to implement.

This seems to confirm the format detailed in the "postal sector model" of the 2006 technical design document:

Is this indeed the case? If so, it would be helpful to add this information and references to the article to reflect the Government's adopted policy.

The DCENR webpage would also be a useful external link:

The reference in the current article to DO4 should presumably be to D04 (digit zero not letter O).

Incidentally, noting List of towns in the Republic of Ireland by population (and allowing for multiple occupants per residential property), I'm surprised that a system that permits a maximum of 1,000 sectors per post town is thought sufficiently flexible to divide every town (with special arrangements for Dublin, Galway, Limerick and Cork) into sectors of 50 or fewer properties while allowing for future changes.

— Richardguk (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delighted that after you quote what is no more than an apsiration - you then began to realise that it is actually not really possible. It should also be noted that to make this aspiration work, Ireland has to be rezoned - Cities like Cork, Limerick, Galway and Kilkenny (and all other areas)have to be divided up and property prices will increase or decrease depending on whether a house makes into a desired zone or not. Just like the Dublin 6W argument this process if it ever goes ahead will be frought with litigation and delays. Perhaps somewhere along the line someone will also begin to realise that to make this proposal work, all roads will have to be given names and all houses numbers. (otherwise finding a particular house amongst 50 others over an area of hundreds of square kilometers in non urban areas would be same as now - ambiguous!!!) This was attempted in Northern Ireland and it could not be completed. And this is in spite of the fact that the postcode project board specified that the introduction of a postcode should not result in changes to anyone's address - yet Minister Ryan stated in the Seanad debate quoted in this article that part of the lead time will be caused by "allocating addresses". So property rezoning and re-addressing is what is aspired to - all of which will have to continually change as the population grows or as new industrial sites are built. And this also against the recommendations of the developers of the Atomic Small Areas Code (NUIM and OSI) who's report states that clusters of houses in numbers below a certain level could be deemed as an invasion of privacy. So Richardguk (talk if examined fully, your surprise should extend further than to the question of flexibility.....wait till the ordinary folk of Ireland realise that their houses are to be rezoned and have their addresses changed - surprise probably will not be an adequate word to describe their reaction - no wonder it is all on hold again!!Dubhtail (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Richardguk forgot to mention that the "spec" that you want to include in the article is no more than an apsiration and therefore cannot be included as "adopted Government Policy" as you call it - Eamonn Ryan's own press release very clearly states "The exact allocation and design will not be finalised until the tender process is complete"  and that which Richardguk quotes is no more than "envisaged" . However, all of this is out of date (September and October 2009) as all is now delayed due to Fine Gael and Labour opposition, the fact that the proposal will not help new entrants to the postal market, also due to An Post and its workers opposition and above all else due to a lack of funds for the significant cost to implement and maintain. Already 3 of the 15 months mentioned to implement have passed by without action - and lets not forget that this was previously announced for implementation by Jan 2008- 2 years now passed - the same all over again it seems!!!! Dubhtail (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) The National Postcodes Project Board specifically recommended a system that allows for the retention of existing zones in Dublin, Galway, Limerick, Cork and, potentially, elsewhere, as set out in the above extract. This is presumably intended to avoid the need for rezoning.

I agree that the Government seems to have sidestepped the problem of existing ambiguous or non-unique addresses. But whatever the merits of the adopted policy, its limitations do not make it unworkable and it is reasonable that the article reflects what the Government is likely to implement.

Taking account of several ministerial statements between 21 September and 17 December 2009, I would say that, rightly or wrongly, the above format is now Government policy and no longer merely an aspiration.

It is true that the wording of the official announcement left some room for manoeuvre:

But subsequent ministerial statements seem to confirm that there is no intention to diverge significantly from the ABC 123 format proposed by the board and illustrated in the above press release.

In particular, the minister has confirmed that the Government has approved implementation "as recommended" by the board, noting that the recommendation was for the ABC 123 format:

This is reiterated in debate with a minister repeating the recommendation and then stating unambiguously that "the postcode will have the structure ABC 123" (emphasis added):

In the past few days, the minister confirmed explicitly that the board's recommended alpha-numeric model is now "approved by the Government":

The Government may have adopted a policy that is opposed by some people, but since there seems to be consensus that postcode policy is, in principle, legitimate for the Government to determine, it would seem appropriate for the article to reflect what the Government has now resolved to do.

Political opposition and counterproposals are of course relevant, but only in the context of the Government's adopted policy. If people oppose the policy, we at least need to know exactly what is being opposed.

— Richardguk (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That all seems reasonable, Richardguk. Add it in? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, The rezoning referred to is the fact that the country has to be zoned into clusters of 40-50 properties - this will mean that some people will be zoned into a town/area and others outside - changing property addresses and values - a large undertaking which will upset many.


 * Secondly something cannot be included in the article unless it is has consensus to be correct. Above in the input from Richardguk is a quote from Dail written answers from 6th October stating : The precise postcode nomenclature and the allocation of individual postcodes will not be finalised until the body that will be charged with implementing postcodes is appointed. This, agees with the Minister's statement on his own website already quoted by me above, which has not been amended since made and also states exactly the same - that the exact system will not be decided until after the tender process. This is a clear statement made on two seperate occasions and cannot be ignored amongst all the political posturing also quoted.


 * Furthermore, there certainly is not consensus amongst the majority party in Government (Non Irish readers may not be aware that Eamonn Ryan is a member of a minority party in Government)and Jim Walsh of the main Government party has expressed reservations on certain counts including that fact that he is supporting that any proposed system should support the Irish language - i.e. contrary to the current proposal where D04 would have to become A04 or B04 (Atha Cliath ot Baile Atha Cliath for the sasanach amongst us) or similar.Seanad Debate 21st Oct 2009 and in keeping with Conradh Na Gaeilge requirements already quoted in the article.


 * So it is clear that there is nothing set in stone on this one and in the same way that we heard "going to Government Shortly" from Eamonn Ryan on this subject from early 2006 to Sept. 2009 - political comment relating to "Government approval" and going to tender "shortly" should not be relied upon as other than political posturing.


 * Finally, we also need to be careful that this article - only recently re-written - does not become yet again the source of major contention by stating as facts what at this point are only aspirations for the future. This has yet to go to tender and the company who wins may well change everything for cost and practical reasons. We, therefore, should not preempt anything in the article itself, and as highlighted by Bastunmany times, this article is about "Irish Postal Addresses" so are we sure something that is not currently part of an Irish Postal Address should be included at all at this point - the earliest it will is at least 12 months away and possibly a lot longer as 3 months have already passed without any action - on hold except for the political posturing it would seem? Dubhtail (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sunday Tribune Article confirms that PostCode plans are on hold: Postcode delay and plans for it to be used for a property taxDubhtail (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "On hold" only in the sense of "delayed" not "suspended", according to the article itself:


 * So the tender is to be issued by early April 2010 with full implementation by December 2011, according to the Sunday Tribune. Two years does sounds more credible than one year for implementation.
 * If the newspaper article is significant, it would be appropriate to add the revised dates and their source to the Wikipedia article.
 * With a general election not required until mid-2012, it seems unlikely that the Government will change before the policy is fully or largely implemented, so it would make sense for Wikipedia to include the details of the adopted policy.
 * Incidentally, it is unfortunate that the newspaper misses out the space when giving example postcodes, obfuscating the extent to which the existing Dublin districts will be preserved in the first part. Perhaps the transition from "Dublin 4" to "D04 nnn" did not seem stark enough to illustrate the reported concerns. And ironic that the piece ends with the Labour spokeswoman criticising the project for "vanity", given that the preservation of vanity addressing seems to be the principal desire of some objectors.
 * — Richardguk (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Think you may be missing the point here Richardguk - DELAYED AGAIN is the point really - espcially since the current delay started on 1st Jan 2008 when it was supposed to be implemented and is now 2 years on. I think that instead of becoming more certain, these delays indicate that the certainty of this happening at all is waning all the time. Also strange for someone in the UK to be commenting on when elections in Ireland are likely to take place - who knows - the Irish themselves don't!!!! Dubhtail (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * During January 2010, wider concerns began to spread that the intended postcode would be used to support a new property tax - some are saying that postcodes are a Prelude to a Property Tax. It also has been further claimed that the design of the postcode is based on flawed information from the Irish Data Commissioner who stated that the intended PostCode could not be used to identify addresses which he claimed were private information but it seems that the Data Commissioner is Mistaken in Fact, Law and Logic Dubhtail (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)