Pezholio

23 Dec, 2009

Open postcodes – my letter to the FT

Posted by: Pez In: Open Data

As some of you have have seen, Sue Cameron of the Financial times has written a confused and desperate sounding article about the government’s recent announcement to open up the postcode dataset for public reuse.

As the FT doesn’t have any commenting functionality (my biggest bugbear with newspaper websites), I’ve drafted a letter to the editor. I’ve not sent it yet, so would appreciate your comments! The full text is below:

Sir,

In Sue Cameron’s article ‘Mandy and Gordon – the unravelling’, Ms. Cameron claims Gordon Brown’s opening of the PAF dataset will be a ‘free gift from the taxpayer to major money makers such as Google’.

Yes, large corporations will benefit slightly (very slightly – they won’t have to pay £1,200 per year to use the PostZon dataset), but the real winners will be small, community built websites, such as Planning Alerts, Job Centre Pro Plus, The Straight Choice and countless other sites, which, until recently were powered by a free service – ernestmarples.com, which tied location data to postcodes.

These sites offered services like alerting people to planning applications and jobs in their area for free, providing useful, innovative services for free and taking the load off the stretched public sector.

However, in October, Ernestmarples.com was forced to close by heavy-handed legal action from the Royal Mail, and without a free location-based dataset, these sites could not function and were closed down.

Linking locations to postcodes is an extremely valuable service which should not be in the control of one private organisation, the data was sourced at the public’s expense and should be free for the public to reuse as they see fit. Who knows – it might end up saving the government a few quid too.

Yours Faithfully

Stuart Harrison

7 Responses to "Open postcodes – my letter to the FT"

1 | Richard Pope

December 23rd, 2009 at 11:39 am

Avatar

It might be worth finding an extract from one of the studies that explain the potential for generating tax revenue from new companies building on public data.

Also there is a mistake in the original article that might be worth pointing out, Royal Mail don’t own the IP, the regulator does I think, Royal Mail just operates the service for it has puts a cap on the level of profit that RM can make.

2 | Christopher Osborne

December 23rd, 2009 at 11:42 am

Avatar

I do rather take issue with the £20m maintenance cost that is repeatedly cited. Even if they do make 1,000 address changes everyday, that still works out as £55 per address change in the DB which sounds like fantasy to me.

Another point – this is all information collected and paid for by LAs as part of their NLPG commitments, so is this not a case of paying for the same work twice which is probably better done at the LA level?

3 | Dafydd Vaughan

December 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 am

Avatar

I think that Richard is right. If I understand the rules correctly, the IP is owned by Postcomm and not Royal Mail. Royal Mail are just licensed to manage it.

Another point – I believe the data that might be released is would be the Postzon database. RM & OS would still be able to sell licenses to the other postcode products they currently have, so it isn’t a totally free giveaway.

4 | Pez

December 23rd, 2009 at 12:08 pm

Avatar

Thanks for the feedback chaps. Are you happy to be added as signatories? Would add extra weight (and also recognise your contributions!)

6 | Dafydd Vaughan

December 23rd, 2009 at 1:19 pm

Avatar

Despite the article saying the consultation has been put back till January, it seems to have appeared on the Communities.gov.uk website today:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/ordnancesurveyconsultation

7 | Andy Mabbett

January 23rd, 2010 at 10:44 pm

Avatar

Was this sent? I would be (or would have been) happy to sign it

Comment Form

Twitter / @pezholio



Desperate monetisation attempt…