"the dataset is always changing, as people move house". When anyone moves house, the postcodes of their new house and their old house do not change. So no effect there.
You don't propose how Royal Mail's income stream from the PAF would be replaced.
"the dataset is always changing, as people move house". When anyone moves house, the postcodes of their new house and their old house do not change. So no effect there.
You don't propose how Royal Mail's income stream from the PAF would be replaced.
If the Royal Mail depends so heavily on the PAF revenues to survive, maybe itтАЩs in the wrong business. тАЬOh no but what about the revenuesтАЭ was *exactly* the argument put forward by Ordnance Survey when the Free Our Data campaign (ЁЯЩЛтАНтЩВя╕П) and Tim Watson were pushing it to go to open data. Yet somehow they managed it and the OS hasnтАЩt gone broke. The RM could use the PAF for zero cost *and* wouldnтАЩt have to pay for its upkeep if it were public data (that task would pass to government, or else RM would get a subsidy to continue its upkeep).
You need to think a little more broadly about the topic.
"the dataset is always changing, as people move house". When anyone moves house, the postcodes of their new house and their old house do not change. So no effect there.
You don't propose how Royal Mail's income stream from the PAF would be replaced.
If the Royal Mail depends so heavily on the PAF revenues to survive, maybe itтАЩs in the wrong business. тАЬOh no but what about the revenuesтАЭ was *exactly* the argument put forward by Ordnance Survey when the Free Our Data campaign (ЁЯЩЛтАНтЩВя╕П) and Tim Watson were pushing it to go to open data. Yet somehow they managed it and the OS hasnтАЩt gone broke. The RM could use the PAF for zero cost *and* wouldnтАЩt have to pay for its upkeep if it were public data (that task would pass to government, or else RM would get a subsidy to continue its upkeep).
You need to think a little more broadly about the topic.