On 6 Feb 2013, at 12:36, Nick Leaton <[email protected]> wrote: > There's also the fact that the PAF is genuinely an expensive dataset to > maintain > > ================= > > I don't understand this bit. Why is it expensive to maintain? Create - yes. > Maintain? It's not that the postcodes are moving around is it. Perhaps I'm > missing something.
postcodes churn at a few % a year. new developments, businesses getting specific codes, postcode areas getting split. The full PAF with addresses even more so. on the other hand, the Post Office maintains PAF (badly) anyway. > > > _______________________________________________ > developers-public mailing list > [email protected] > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > Unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/stefan%40whitelabel.org -- /* Stefan Magdalinski +62 811 9591262 smagdali (IM/twitter/flickr/dopplr/skype/etc) */
_______________________________________________ developers-public mailing list [email protected] https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
