Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)
On 20/6/21 10:03 am, Adam Horan wrote: /"Lineage: The production process commences with textual matching between the Australia Post database and the attribute fields of the spatial Localities theme of the Administrative Boundaries dataset. Detailed analysis is then required of duplicate named Localities within VIC, NSW, and QLD to ensure that these Localities and their Postcode are neighboured to other Localities with the same Postcode. The next production stage involves the examination and allocation of Postcodes to gazetted Localities that either have no delivery service or have not yet been assigned a Postcode within the Australia Post database. This requires liaison with state-based Postcode controllers and in turn state-based delivery operations. This is an ongoing process and as a result, Postcode Boundaries will always be subject to change according to the needs of delivery operations. Locality boundaries are subsequently Dissolved/Aggregated based on the Postcode attribute. "/ / / They do also say this: /"Postcode Boundaries is produced through a partnership with Australia Post and *provides the official representation of postal delivery areas across Australia*."/ Those two statements are interesting when read together. It does suggest that Australia Post is moving away from postcode boundaries that spilt gazetted localities. Maybe there is so little hand addressed mail now that they can OCR the entire address and code it down to the delivery route level; all the postcode does is differentiate between localities with the same name. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)
On 20/6/21 10:03 am, Adam Horan wrote: They do also say this: /"Postcode Boundaries is produced through a partnership with Australia Post and *provides the official representation of postal delivery areas across Australia*."/ I don't understand your point. Are you saying that Australia Post is not getting a cut of the licence fee? Or is this one of those semantic arguments where the problem is I should of said: the local postal service will sell you a copy through their partnership with Geoscape Australia? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)
PSMA/Geoscape isn't Australia Post. AusPost will sell you a list of postcodes mapped to Localities, and with a lat/long reference for a single point within the postcode. They don't sell a shapefile. https://postcode.auspost.com.au/product_display.html?id=4 The AusPost sample data is: PCode Locality State Comments Category Longitude Latitude 3000 MELBOURNE VIC Delivery Area 144.9650545 -37.8112625 3001 MELBOURNE VIC GPO Boxes Post Office Boxes 3002 EAST MELBOURNE VIC Delivery Area 144.981347 -37.8154235 3003 WEST MELBOURNE VIC Delivery Area 144.9309505 -37.8105385 3004 MELBOURNE VIC ST KILDA RD DISTRICT Delivery Area 144.9783715 -37.836898 3004 ST KILDA ROAD MELBOURNE VIC CARE PO ONLY Delivery Area 3006 SOUTHBANK VIC Delivery Area 144.9591655 -37.8253635 PSMA/Geoscape will sell you a shapefile, but it's one they've generated by this process. I think it's clear that the PSMA data is interpreted/derived rather than being a definition. However it's likely the most accurate spatial representation of the postcodes. *"Lineage: The production process commences with textual matching between the Australia Post database and the attribute fields of the spatial Localities theme of the Administrative Boundaries dataset. Detailed analysis is then required of duplicate named Localities within VIC, NSW, and QLD to ensure that these Localities and their Postcode are neighboured to other Localities with the same Postcode. The next production stage involves the examination and allocation of Postcodes to gazetted Localities that either have no delivery service or have not yet been assigned a Postcode within the Australia Post database. This requires liaison with state-based Postcode controllers and in turn state-based delivery operations. This is an ongoing process and as a result, Postcode Boundaries will always be subject to change according to the needs of delivery operations. Locality boundaries are subsequently Dissolved/Aggregated based on the Postcode attribute. "* They do also say this: *"Postcode Boundaries is produced through a partnership with Australia Post and provides the official representation of postal delivery areas across Australia."* On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 at 09:35, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 19/6/21 3:54 am, stevea wrote: > > > In the USA (in OSM) we say rather bluntly "ZIP codes are not > > boundaries." (ZIP codes are USA postcodes). > > The situation in Australia is different. Over here they *are* boundaries > and our local postal service will sell you a copy of them: > > > https://geoscape.com.au/documentation/postcode-boundaries-metadata-statement/ > > The paradox I was referring to is why would I buy a copy? > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)
On 17/6/21 7:14 pm, Andrew Harvey via Talk-au wrote: This does sound like addr:postcode on each address object is the way to go and correctly capture the postcode of each address. We can still have postal_code's on admin boundaries where the the vast majority of addresses within that boundary have that postcode. Vicmap has post code boundaries for Victoria: https://vgls.sdp.sirsidynix.net.au/client/search/asset/1288956/0 why can't we use those? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)
On 19/6/21 3:54 am, stevea wrote: In the USA (in OSM) we say rather bluntly "ZIP codes are not boundaries." (ZIP codes are USA postcodes). The situation in Australia is different. Over here they *are* boundaries and our local postal service will sell you a copy of them: https://geoscape.com.au/documentation/postcode-boundaries-metadata-statement/ The paradox I was referring to is why would I buy a copy? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)
On 19/6/21 9:48 am, Ewen Hill wrote: and who sends a letter nowadays ;) You make a good point there. So why are we putting postcodes into OSM? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)
Quoting "Sebastian S." : "Me is wondering how I would get notified if my postcode would change? By Australia Post? By ABS?" Hi When my postcode changed from Narre Warren East 3782 to Belgrave South 3160, I was notified by Australia Post. (But amusingly: they then realised that the roads were too busy and unsafe for the motor bike delivery from Belgrave South and my mail is still delivered by car from Narre Warren East. It gets redirected from Belgrave South to Narre Warren East) Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)
Me is wondering how I would get notified if my postcode would change? By Australia Post? By ABS? On 19 June 2021 9:48:56 am AEST, Ewen Hill wrote: >Hi all, >We have been using the ABS 2016 postcode boundaries under intense >scrutiny compared to the "current" Auspost and found very few >inconsistencies in Victoria and I would suggest that this is mere legal >jargon to avoid any commercial litigation or that this was required >under >the release terms to the ABS. The issues we have seen are > > - The new postcode of 3336 for Deanside, Aintree and Fraser Rise - > https://auspost.com.au/postcode/3336 >- Another new postcode or altered postcode boundaries around >Tallangatta > or Albury (can't remember what the specifics of this one were) >- The population of 3066 of Derrimut and Laverton North of "72" when it > was industrial / farm land has now ballooned into the thousands > - Some minor anomalies where roads have been rerouted (Geelong by-pass > from memory) > - Some park land / national park differences > >As there is no formal process by Australia Post that I can see from >announcing changes, then I see Andrew's approach is solid and will >require >minimal upkeep - and who sends a letter nowadays ;) > >Ewen > > > >On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 at 03:58, stevea wrote: > >> On Jun 17, 2021, at 2:14 AM, Andrew Harvey via Talk-au < >> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: >> >> It's a fair point that Vicmap's own postcode field shouldn't be >taken >> as 100% correct, it looks like it might have been assigned based on >> postcode boundaries so might still suffer issues because of this, but >where >> addr:postcode is not already mapped, most of the time the Vicmap one >will >> be correct. >> >> To be clear, I'm 100% OK with postcodes on nodes with addresses, such >> things belong together (as that tag on that node): it is indeed "the >> correct way to go." (IMHO). >> >> I'm not terribly excited (dejected) to see a suggestion that ABS' >> described "imprecise process" (of conflating postcodes with >geographic >> boundaries) is glibly said as "we can still have postal_codes on >admin >> boundaries where the vast majority of addresses within that boundary >have >> that postcode." >> >> In the USA (in OSM) we say rather bluntly "ZIP codes are not >boundaries." >> (ZIP codes are USA postcodes). It seems ABS agrees. Putting them on >> entire admin boundaries, especially where they are not 100% correct >(all of >> them?) adds noise to our data, which I am identifying and say "in the >USA, >> we just don't do this" (as they are simply not the same). >> >> Though, postcode tags on address nodes, sure. Good way to do it, >correct >> way to go, et cetera. >> >> In the USA, OSM imported mid-2000s national census data to "lay down >a >> road grid." We continue to unravel and fully "TIGER Review" these >data, 15 >> years later. They are "noisily (though that gets better over time, >with >> effort) mostly correct" today, but. >> >> There is a wide distribution / spectrum of such (postal) data >scattered >> around OSM in various jurisdictions. I'm saying that at this level >of >> conversation, pave the road smarter, rather than glibly or easily. >Good >> planning makes better maps. >> >> Thank you for saying "fair point," too. I hope I haven't beaten it >up too >> much, so thank you to all for patience reading. >> ___ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> > > >-- >Warm Regards > >Ewen Hill ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)
Lots to read here. My take away is Postcodes are not from Australia Post and a proprietary system. Postcodes are not great for areas, it might work but can also be complex. (I'm thinking sprinkled houses in a rough terrain making the relation consists of several areas that are not officially defined?) Postcodes are considered part of the address by most of us, however Australia Post could go without. I still prefer them on the node, however I'm ok if the import proceeds without. As being said, we should get going, make a decision, document it and go. On 19 June 2021 3:54:38 am AEST, stevea wrote: >On Jun 17, 2021, at 2:14 AM, Andrew Harvey via Talk-au > wrote: >>> It's a fair point that Vicmap's own postcode field shouldn't be >taken as 100% correct, it looks like it might have been assigned based >on postcode boundaries so might still suffer issues because of this, >but where addr:postcode is not already mapped, most of the time the >Vicmap one will be correct. > >To be clear, I'm 100% OK with postcodes on nodes with addresses, such >things belong together (as that tag on that node): it is indeed "the >correct way to go." (IMHO). > >I'm not terribly excited (dejected) to see a suggestion that ABS' >described "imprecise process" (of conflating postcodes with geographic >boundaries) is glibly said as "we can still have postal_codes on admin >boundaries where the vast majority of addresses within that boundary >have that postcode." > >In the USA (in OSM) we say rather bluntly "ZIP codes are not >boundaries." (ZIP codes are USA postcodes). It seems ABS agrees. >Putting them on entire admin boundaries, especially where they are not >100% correct (all of them?) adds noise to our data, which I am >identifying and say "in the USA, we just don't do this" (as they are >simply not the same). > >Though, postcode tags on address nodes, sure. Good way to do it, >correct way to go, et cetera. > >In the USA, OSM imported mid-2000s national census data to "lay down a >road grid." We continue to unravel and fully "TIGER Review" these >data, 15 years later. They are "noisily (though that gets better over >time, with effort) mostly correct" today, but. > >There is a wide distribution / spectrum of such (postal) data scattered >around OSM in various jurisdictions. I'm saying that at this level of >conversation, pave the road smarter, rather than glibly or easily. >Good planning makes better maps. > >Thank you for saying "fair point," too. I hope I haven't beaten it up >too much, so thank you to all for patience reading. >___ >Talk-au mailing list >Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)
On Jun 17, 2021, at 2:14 AM, Andrew Harvey via Talk-au wrote: >> It's a fair point that Vicmap's own postcode field shouldn't be taken as >> 100% correct, it looks like it might have been assigned based on postcode >> boundaries so might still suffer issues because of this, but where >> addr:postcode is not already mapped, most of the time the Vicmap one will be >> correct. To be clear, I'm 100% OK with postcodes on nodes with addresses, such things belong together (as that tag on that node): it is indeed "the correct way to go." (IMHO). I'm not terribly excited (dejected) to see a suggestion that ABS' described "imprecise process" (of conflating postcodes with geographic boundaries) is glibly said as "we can still have postal_codes on admin boundaries where the vast majority of addresses within that boundary have that postcode." In the USA (in OSM) we say rather bluntly "ZIP codes are not boundaries." (ZIP codes are USA postcodes). It seems ABS agrees. Putting them on entire admin boundaries, especially where they are not 100% correct (all of them?) adds noise to our data, which I am identifying and say "in the USA, we just don't do this" (as they are simply not the same). Though, postcode tags on address nodes, sure. Good way to do it, correct way to go, et cetera. In the USA, OSM imported mid-2000s national census data to "lay down a road grid." We continue to unravel and fully "TIGER Review" these data, 15 years later. They are "noisily (though that gets better over time, with effort) mostly correct" today, but. There is a wide distribution / spectrum of such (postal) data scattered around OSM in various jurisdictions. I'm saying that at this level of conversation, pave the road smarter, rather than glibly or easily. Good planning makes better maps. Thank you for saying "fair point," too. I hope I haven't beaten it up too much, so thank you to all for patience reading. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)
On Jun 17, 2021, at 2:14 AM, Andrew Harvey via Talk-au wrote: > It's a fair point that Vicmap's own postcode field shouldn't be taken as 100% > correct, it looks like it might have been assigned based on postcode > boundaries so might still suffer issues because of this, but where > addr:postcode is not already mapped, most of the time the Vicmap one will be > correct. Here, we see about how slippery the slope it is. Lots of weasel words there, no offense Andrew, but it's already "smeary" (and that's largely my point). There does come a point where we have to look ourselves in the mirror and say "even with all the fudging and hand-waving, let's do this" and wonder if we are taking ourselves seriously. I hear something like "well, mate, a postcode is a postcode, everybody knows what that is..." yet right here, right now we see that isn't quite the case. I'm not here to pick a fight, I'm sorta calling "tag, that's smeary" on the whole thing. I might have thought that "paradox" of the topic alerts that this is a prickly fence to sit, maybe not. It's messy, I agree. I merely call "a whiff in the air," (as we Yanks have these things, too) and they are odd and fit into a "not quite really mappable" box. They truly do. I suppose if you had the letter-carrier walkable-drivable routes as sub-trees in a network fully-labeled described with all postcodes (such a thing must exist, in Post offices), sure, you could "see" such a thing (is true) — and with time and permission model it in OSM. But we (OSM) don't, so we can't really say much more than "most of the time" and "suffer issues" if we are being truthful (and I thank you for being truthful). It's a smeary paradox. We have these in OSM. It's tough, I know. We do our best to model the real world. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)
On Thu, 17 Jun 2021, at 6:08 PM, Adam Horan wrote: > > The ABS have an interesting factsheet on postcodes and their own 'Postal > Area' interpretation (POA). > https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/factsheetspoa > It starts with this statement: > *"A postcode is a four digit number used by Australia Post to assist with > mail delivery. Australia Post does not currently define geographic boundaries > for postcodes. However, a number of organisations, such as PSMA Australia > Limited, create geographic boundaries that aim to define the geographic > extent of the mail delivery area for each postcode. Defining postcodes with a > geographic boundary is an imprecise process, and this is demonstrated by the > fact that there are variations in boundaries released by different > organisations."* > ** > Some postcodes cross state boundaries, one example is 3644 which covers > Cobram in VIC and Lalalty in NSW > https://auspost.com.au/postcode/lalalty > https://auspost.com.au/postcode/cobram/vic/dgee > https://www.google.com/maps/place/VIC+3644/ > > There are also regions with no postcode, eg parts of the wilderness in West > Tasmania. > > Some postcodes cover non-contiguous areas eg 3585 which is in two parts > https://www.google.com/maps/place/VIC+3585/ > > In VIC at least shapefiles for postcodes exist, I didn't search more broadly. > The VIC data is aligned to property boundaries. > https://services.land.vic.gov.au/SpatialDatamart/dataSearchViewMetadata.html?anzlicId=ANZVI0803003521=1 > > and > https://discover.data.vic.gov.au/dataset/postcode-boundaries-polygon-vicmap-admin This does sound like addr:postcode on each address object is the way to go and correctly capture the postcode of each address. We can still have postal_code's on admin boundaries where the the vast majority of addresses within that boundary have that postcode. Stage 1 of my proposed import adds the missing postal_code tags on these relations https://gitlab.com/alantgeo/vicmap2osm/#stage-1-postal_code. This can coexist with addr:postcode. It's a fair point that Vicmap's own postcode field shouldn't be taken as 100% correct, it looks like it might have been assigned based on postcode boundaries so might still suffer issues because of this, but where addr:postcode is not already mapped, most of the time the Vicmap one will be correct. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)
The ABS have an interesting factsheet on postcodes and their own 'Postal Area' interpretation (POA). https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/factsheetspoa It starts with this statement: *"A postcode is a four digit number used by Australia Post to assist with mail delivery. Australia Post does not currently define geographic boundaries for postcodes. However, a number of organisations, such as PSMA Australia Limited, create geographic boundaries that aim to define the geographic extent of the mail delivery area for each postcode. Defining postcodes with a geographic boundary is an imprecise process, and this is demonstrated by the fact that there are variations in boundaries released by different organisations."* Some postcodes cross state boundaries, one example is 3644 which covers Cobram in VIC and Lalalty in NSW https://auspost.com.au/postcode/lalalty https://auspost.com.au/postcode/cobram/vic/dgee https://www.google.com/maps/place/VIC+3644/ There are also regions with no postcode, eg parts of the wilderness in West Tasmania. Some postcodes cover non-contiguous areas eg 3585 which is in two parts https://www.google.com/maps/place/VIC+3585/ In VIC at least shapefiles for postcodes exist, I didn't search more broadly. The VIC data is aligned to property boundaries. https://services.land.vic.gov.au/SpatialDatamart/dataSearchViewMetadata.html?anzlicId=ANZVI0803003521=1 and https://discover.data.vic.gov.au/dataset/postcode-boundaries-polygon-vicmap-admin Google seems to have pretty accurate shapes for postcodes - but no idea of their sourcing. Regards, Adam On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 16:08, stevea wrote: > I know (I know), I’m talking to the Australia list and I’m in the USA > (California). I have friends from Oz, but I’ve never been (I’d love to > visit as a tourist, it’s on my bucket list). > > In the USA, the USPS (postal service) uses five-digit “ZIP” codes (Zone, > digit 1; Improvement, digits 2 and 3; Plan, digits 4 and 5) for what you > call postcodes, the five-digit version generally identifies a single post > office, big or small. Started in the 1960s (or so), they have grown to > “ZIP+4” codes (nine digits) that seem to specify right down to a “side of a > street on a block,” single apartment building, or even individual house > level. I believe there are even 11-digit versions (crawling right up yer > bum, it seems; with 11 digits, even my cat could have his own ZIP code). > On the other hand, I have a Post Office box (identified by four digits) and > the post office is identified by its five-digit ZIP code. I once > test-mailed an envelope to myself with just nine digits properly hyphenated > (no name, no house number, no street, no city, no state), and sure enough, > it arrived in my box. (It had the usual "sprayed-on” zebra/barcode > representing the ZIP+4 along the bottom to facilitate machine-reading > further along the pipeline that all our other mail has, too, but was > otherwise addressed with “only the ZIP+4”). > > Three points about ZIP codes which might be similar to postcodes in > Australia (and Canada and the UK, it seems): despite what most people > think, ZIP codes are NOT required for a letter to be delivered. It might > take a bit longer without one, but it WILL be delivered. City, State, > ZIP? (Or ZIP+4?): not really required, as City, State (only) does > suffice. Secondly, I’ve discerned (and had others who should know confirm) > that a ZIP code is much like a “routing algorithm” (of 5, 9 or 11 digits): > it is NOT a geographic area that can be (easily) described by a polygon, > even a multipolygon. I mean, plenty of cartographic gymnastics have made > geographic areas OUT OF ZIP codes (or postcodes) — some relatively > “successfully” (accurately?) but they are not such things (a geographic > area, even as they seem as though they are). > > Finally, the whole thing about “these are the property of the post office > and we’re going to be very non-sharing with them…” seems to be widespread > with postcodes, I’m not sure why that is, but hey, if postal services want > their codes to be proprietary, they can do that. But that should make > cartographers like us think twice about why we’re including them in a map: > what, exactly, can putting these data in OUR map “buy” us by doing so? > Yes, I know there is a general attitude of “postcodes are NEEDED, else how > will the mail get delivered!” (thought in our mind’s voice approaching a > shrill panic). But, recall, (at least in the USA, maybe Australia, Canada, > UK..., too) they aren’t strictly needed, but are more of a convenience for > automation and the internal workings of how to sort and deliver mail, not > really a function a map needs to provide its consumers (anyway). > > Things to think about, and perhaps quite non-overlapping, but I felt like > typing all that, so thanks for reading. > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >
Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)
I know (I know), I’m talking to the Australia list and I’m in the USA (California). I have friends from Oz, but I’ve never been (I’d love to visit as a tourist, it’s on my bucket list). In the USA, the USPS (postal service) uses five-digit “ZIP” codes (Zone, digit 1; Improvement, digits 2 and 3; Plan, digits 4 and 5) for what you call postcodes, the five-digit version generally identifies a single post office, big or small. Started in the 1960s (or so), they have grown to “ZIP+4” codes (nine digits) that seem to specify right down to a “side of a street on a block,” single apartment building, or even individual house level. I believe there are even 11-digit versions (crawling right up yer bum, it seems; with 11 digits, even my cat could have his own ZIP code). On the other hand, I have a Post Office box (identified by four digits) and the post office is identified by its five-digit ZIP code. I once test-mailed an envelope to myself with just nine digits properly hyphenated (no name, no house number, no street, no city, no state), and sure enough, it arrived in my box. (It had the usual "sprayed-on” zebra/barcode representing the ZIP+4 along the bottom to facilitate machine-reading further along the pipeline that all our other mail has, too, but was otherwise addressed with “only the ZIP+4”). Three points about ZIP codes which might be similar to postcodes in Australia (and Canada and the UK, it seems): despite what most people think, ZIP codes are NOT required for a letter to be delivered. It might take a bit longer without one, but it WILL be delivered. City, State, ZIP? (Or ZIP+4?): not really required, as City, State (only) does suffice. Secondly, I’ve discerned (and had others who should know confirm) that a ZIP code is much like a “routing algorithm” (of 5, 9 or 11 digits): it is NOT a geographic area that can be (easily) described by a polygon, even a multipolygon. I mean, plenty of cartographic gymnastics have made geographic areas OUT OF ZIP codes (or postcodes) — some relatively “successfully” (accurately?) but they are not such things (a geographic area, even as they seem as though they are). Finally, the whole thing about “these are the property of the post office and we’re going to be very non-sharing with them…” seems to be widespread with postcodes, I’m not sure why that is, but hey, if postal services want their codes to be proprietary, they can do that. But that should make cartographers like us think twice about why we’re including them in a map: what, exactly, can putting these data in OUR map “buy” us by doing so? Yes, I know there is a general attitude of “postcodes are NEEDED, else how will the mail get delivered!” (thought in our mind’s voice approaching a shrill panic). But, recall, (at least in the USA, maybe Australia, Canada, UK..., too) they aren’t strictly needed, but are more of a convenience for automation and the internal workings of how to sort and deliver mail, not really a function a map needs to provide its consumers (anyway). Things to think about, and perhaps quite non-overlapping, but I felt like typing all that, so thanks for reading. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)
On 14/6/21 10:28 pm, Ewen Hill wrote: With regard to postcodes. The proprietary nature and no formal notification of change to postcodes makes the whole process of getting data less than optimal. This is the weird thing about postcodes in Australia. On one hand they are designed to be used on mail, so that it can be delivered efficiently. We're expected to know what the postcode of the address we're mailing is and to add it. On the other hand postcode boundaries are proprietary and you are expected to pay for them: https://geoscape.com.au/documentation/postcode-boundaries-metadata-statement/ So how does that work? How am I supposed to know what to put on the letter? Better still, what is the market for paying for a postcode boundary dataset? Given that it is secret then your customers are not going to be using the same thing as you. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
