Thread.

The UK's street address data is one of our most important, and problematic, public datasets.

Now, an opportunity has arisen to do something about it. Read on.

(1/10)

Here's why it matters.

Let’s say you’re creating a service that uses addresses.

Perhaps you’re building the next Deliveroo. Or organising emergency food parcels.

You need a way for users to enter addresses; to locate them; and probably to match them with other data.

(2/10)
It's as fundamental to public and private sector services as the periodic table is central to science.

For these reasons, other countries have official, freely available address and location data.

But the UK doesn’t.

(3/10)
This causes us innumerable problems.

Whether you’re building a business, and spending endless time wrangling with what should be simple data issues...

https://t.co/swmaVj4qnS

(4/10)
...or you’re a civil servant trying to deliver emergency support services at the height of a pandemic…

https://t.co/FahZThzYaQ

(5/10)
...or you’re a democracy charity making it easier for people to vote…

https://t.co/vUyelwVxNC

….you waste time obtaining and cleaning basic data.

Ultimately, it's pure drag on the economy and a brake on public service improvements. It causes real harms.

(6/10)
Addresses are a key part of our national data infrastructure, and they aren’t working.

Let's skip how we got here. Here’s the opportunity now.

Address data is managed by Royal Mail. Royal Mail is regulated by Ofcom.

(7/10)
Ofcom has the power to review the governance of UK address data.

It last did this in 2013.

Right now, Ofcom is consulting on what it should do for the next 2 years: https://t.co/sWQY2pldlP

We should all ask Ofcom to review address data again in 2021.

(8/10)
Here's how to ask them to, in 5 mins:

1. Download the form: https://t.co/xhGYDI4hwh (.odt)

2. Suggest Ofcom review the cost and governance of PAF in 2021/22, as part of its broader review of postal regulation

3. Mail it to [email protected] by 5 Feb

🎉

(9/10)
Finally, please share this with your address-data-using friends, and let's make 2021 the year we start to make addresses work for everyone.

https://t.co/5jU4jVzMEj

Thanks to @peterkwells for spotting this opportunity, and much expert advice!

(10/10)

More from For later read

@snip96581187 @Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen Clearly, because as I have been saying for 8 months now, DTRA and DARPA have been using Ecohealth and UC Davis to collect novel pathogens for gain of function work back in the USA. I have documented this in many threads which I will post here just to annoy everyone.

@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen


@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen


@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen


@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/


Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/

BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/

The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/

Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/

You May Also Like