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 <ewen.h...@gmail.com> 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 <stevea...@softworkers.com> 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