[talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)

[Sebastian S.]

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.hill at 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 <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 17, 2021, at 2:14 AM, Andrew Harvey via Talk-au <
>> talk-au at 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 at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Warm Regards
>
>Ewen Hill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20210619/40e4077b/attachment-0001.htm>