Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap are completely different to Post Codes. They
contain information, post codes are just data.
Individuals access wikipedia and openstreetmap for their own purposes and
decide on a case by case basis how much they trust what they see - they
process the information intelligently. Postcode data is usually used in an
automated way and is either right or wrong. Data of unknown quality is
virtually useless.

Charging a fee for the PAF is not that different to a tax, it is just a tax
on those who want to use the data...
However if it were only charged to commercial users then it would be a tax
on those who *profited* from the use of the data - which I can see as a far
more agreeable and arguable position.

Paul /)/+)

2009/10/7 Tim Morley <[email protected]>

> On 7 Oct 2009, at 10:07, paul perrin wrote:
>
> > The problem with free the post code is that it is never going to be
> > complete/accurate enough to rely on... and worse, you have
> > absolutely no idea of how accurate/complete/incomplete it is... a
> > good idea but fundamentally flawed.
>
> Ditto OpenStreetMap. Ditto Wikipedia. People have been saying they
> can't possibly be any use for years, but that hasn't stopped them
> evolving into really useful, free resources.
>
> > The strength of the post code system is that it is complete and
> > reliable
>
> Clearly you've never lived on a new development, where three years
> after my house was built, an ambulance couldn't find it based on its
> postcode; and two years after the Cambridge postcodes were updated,
> my Virgin Media bill still comes with the old postcode on it.
>
> > It does cost money to maintain post codes - (and other freeable
> > data - like ordinance survey maps) - if the data is freed then
> > where does the money come from?
>
> Again, it's a discussion that's been had many times, not least on
> this list if IIRC, but the gist of it is that the cost of creating
> and maintaining the postcodes was and is born by the taxpayer. The
> current model for recouping some of that cost is to charge for the
> data. A different and arguably better model is to make the data
> freely available and to rake in more tax from the increased economic
> activity that results.
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to