On 6 Oct 2009, at 11:11, paul perrin wrote: > For some time I have thought that the public should boycott post > codes... > develop an open source alternative and use that... > Yes it would be *nice* if our existing postcodes were 'freed' but > without > the threat of an alternative it won't happen, but without commitment > to a > new system it will never be created - so people who care should make a > decision and stick with it.
Yes, but given their monopoly over postal services, what's the point. If the Royal Mail won't use it, then nobody can gain by using it. Well, except you could find it slightly easier to fill out your address in web forms. > > Couldn't postcodes be extracted from a public source via an freedom of > information request? > > It is insidious that so much of our lives is under the thumb of > a proprietary system. > > UK-ZIP... a new two part code something like > zone = <postal-city-code><direction-from-city-code><distance-from- > city-code> > (or direction/distance in once sprially code like paris). > > property within zone = ?? don't know yet :-) > > It can't be difficult - and if the switch over make is difficult for > the > authorities, that is their look out... should have listened earlier. > > Paul /)/+) > > 2009/10/6 Francis Davey <[email protected]> > >> 2009/10/6 Paul Waring <[email protected]>: >>> >>> I think the whole idea was that they didn't tell people where >>> their data >>> came from, so the access couldn't be cut off. As far as I can >>> remember >>> from a talk at OpenTech, it was taken from a variety of unnamed >>> sources. >> :) >> >> That's right. They were (rightly) coy about where they were getting >> the information from. >> >>> >>> As has already been said, it doesn't matter whether they were >>> taking it >>> directly from the RM database or a copy used by someone else (e.g. a >>> licensee). It's a shame to see the service go, but if the RM does >>> have >>> the rights to the information then they're entitled to stop people >>> using >>> it without their permission. >> >> Yes, though there is an "if" in there. Alas, EM(P)L was never >> intended >> to fight the matter out, the plan outlined at OpenTech was to fold >> with bad publicity when the heat got too strong (or something like >> that) so we will never know. >> >> -- >> Francis Davey >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list [email protected] >> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: >> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >> > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public -- Ian Eiloart _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
