Talk:Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland/Archive 5

Consideration of competing designs as a national form of postcode
The proposed code design from the Government is based on using ABC 123 to identify groups of buildings - 10 in urban areas, and up to 20 in more rural areas, according to a statement by Communications Minister, Eamonn Ryan, in the Seanad on 21 October 2009. "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."

This quote was part of a debate in which the use of a unique identifier code using GPS developed by a specific company was promoted to the Minister to consider as an alternative. He went on to say in response: "As to whether GPS would be more accurate, that is possibly the case but the information I have is that using the data systems we will look to use for the provision of a postcode will allow us provide a location code that will identify a location down to the nearest square metre or few square metres. That will allow an ambulance driver on an emergency call identify a piece of infrastructure or a roadway that will help them get to a specific location. Subject to the approval of the Data Protection Commissioner, this code can be evolved in a way that provides that level of accuracy for the ambulance service and other infrastructural services while not infringing people’s right to privacy. I am told it is possible for us to do that in a way that is just as effective as GPS."

The idea of a unique identifier code that precisely identifies a single building has been developed by a number of companies/individuals. They are based on converting geo-coordinates of a particular point into a multi-character code. These systems were referenced in the Postcodes Report published in April 2010 by the Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

In contrast to the Government design of 6 characters, the competing codes vary in length, one using  5-7 characters and another a fixed 8 characters. One difference between these digital location codes and the proposed Government postcode design of ABC 123 is that the location codes can identify any point on the island of Ireland, whereas the Irish Government's proposed ABC 123 model would only focus on groups of buildings and other street furniture in the Republic of Ireland.

The formats and platforms of how the codes can be used also vary with some being used just on the web and satnav, and others also available on mobile/smartphones/iPhones as well as satnav and web. Both companies say they plan to export the technology to other countries. It remains to be decided by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources as to whether any of these location code designs would even be considered in a tender for Ireland's official postcode system. Bandinage (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Question
Can someone explain the supposed privacy concerns to me over having a unique postcode? What's the difference between a building having a unique postcode and having an address - which, by definition, is unique? Are the concerns just about increased/better targetted junkmail? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 07:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I should first point out that an address is not necessarily unique - particularly in Ireland. It's estimated that close to 40% of Irish addresses are non-unique i.e. they have no number or name on the house. Main Road, Birr, Co. Offlay or Dublin Road, Navan, Co. Meath might have 30-40 buildings each that all use that form of the address with no other identifier. A commercial premises would be different clearly.

The supposed privacy concerns stem largely from a letter of advice written by the Data Protection Commissioner in 2006, in response to a request from the Postcode Working Group operating at that time. In the letter, (a copy of which is available on the web in the recent Oireachtas Report on Postcodes), he sets out his definitions of personal data, and why he believes a person's address falls under that definition. Concluding that it does, he went on to say that 'one-to-one' style postcodes were not a good idea since they identified a person's specific address, in his view. Area-based codes, which contained clusters of 20-50 houses were acceptable. The Working Group were left with no choice but to consider only area-based code designs and came up with ABC 123.

The report is at http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees30thdail/j-communicationsenr/reports/20100331.pdf. The DPC letter is on pages 41/42.

This Postcodes Report, authored by Liz McManus TD, queried the value and accuracy of this DPC advice pointing out that address information on people's houses and locations were already widely available e.g. GeoDirectory and GO Code which were referenced in the Report as providing unique identifiers, along with Google Maps and OSI and their specific address information and location facilities. She argued that the Oireachtas Committee were of the view that the design selected by the Govt was unfit for purpose with the advances in modern technology, GPS, iPhones, etc. The report said that a Unique Identifier solution was the way forward that would harness those technologies, and pointed out that location code solutions were already available in the market such as the GO Code and Ponc.

The Minister, Eamonn Ryan, was pushed on the issue by Liz McManus to get a re-appraisal of the advice from the DPC, and he subsequently said in the Dail to her that the DPC believed a one-to-one database for a postcode could be developed as long as there were sufficient and appropriate controls around its use/circulation. He also stated that the ABC 123 design could have additional characters added to it to give precision around location of things like house or streetlights as per the quotes given in the above article.

Two things to consider here in the context of this issue.

Liberalisation of the postal sector begins on 1 Jan 2011. An Post will have real competition on its hands. Having an area-based postcode, such as ABC 123, whereby a user can only get down to a certain level in a locality without the local knowledge to find a specific building - such as the local knowledge in a postman's head - could be useful to particular parties.

Equally, having a postcode design, whereby the additional characters that provide precision e.g. adding 456 onto the ABC 123 design to get you to a particular house, is commercially beneficial. A Postcode Management Company could hold these additional portions - known as the Delivery Point Suffix in the UK - and sell them to companies who want/need them under certain conditions of use. Bandinage (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that the delivery point suffix would only be available to 3rd parties under Data Protection restrictions (direct mail companies for instance) and private users would not have access to it;- the furnture delivery man for example? Tsopna (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reference to Geolocation codes with Ref 10 added to this article recently is factually incorrect for the following reasons:
 * * The actual tender document states that additional characters may be added at a future time - adding numerals to a descriptive code does not make it a geolocation code - just a hybrid descriptive and numeric code
 * * The GeoDirectory is not itself and does not contain a geolocation code - it contains a numeric code and pure geodetic grid references - none of which are used in the public domain as a geocode. In fact postcode consultant reports specifically stated that the Geodirectory contained nothing suitable for use as a postcode;- thereby triggering 7 years of discussion, consultants reports and tenders.
 * * Only one of the geolocation code listed in the wiki link given is actually being considered as one of the approved suppliers selected in mid 2011. As these have not been published officially any reference to coding systems being considered would be without any official reference.
 * * The Irish Times article quoted as Reference 10 - specifically states that precise codes would not be selected and one of the codes listed in the geolocation codes wiki link is specifically stated as one that would not be selected
 * As a result, this sentence, wiki link and reference should be removed as factually incorrect and misleading Tsopna (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Coverage
This article page should not even be a forum for the topic of the future postcode except for a short summary linking to the main article on Irish postcodes. This article is not about any past or future postcode in Ireland at all, it is about how how post is addressed in Ireland. We have an entirely more appropriate article where the preparation for the Irish postcode is more appropriate, vis., Postal codes in the Republic of Ireland. ww2censor (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but at the time when it was created, there was no indication as to whether or not there would be a postcode system at all. A similar thing happened with the New Zealand postal addresses article, which was superseded by one on the postcode system introduced in 2006, to which it redirects. Quiensabe (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Archiving of pages
I have noticed that the archiving of talk topics on this page are being done extremely quickly, with many articles less than 20 days old. This should not be done - according to Help:Archiving_a_talk_page, "Decisions about when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are made according to consensus for each case, however the talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 50 KB or has more than 10 main topics. Leave ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference intact."

Note the word consensus in the above, and also the recommended talk page length/size. Archiving topics too quickly means any topics created cannot be adequately discussed. Such archiving can appear to some to be made solely to deliberately inhibit discussions of topics that some contributors would prefer to be ignored, which is against the principles of Wikipedia. Such behaviour is considered disruptive, and has consequences. The Yeti (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see this is being done with a bot. I have amended the bot to a more realistic timeframe. Read the bot setup page before editing again - the settings were set below default/recommended levels. Also note the word consensus. The Yeti (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * One thing I notice is that you appear not to have read the archived pages .Garda40 (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The consensus of regular, registered editors, as opposed to banned sockpuppets, is to archive often. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)