28 Oct
2003
28 Oct
'03
7:47 p.m.
Earle Martin wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 02:18:08PM +0000, David
Cantrell wrote:
Mmmm, fair point.
However, they wouldn't be bitching about the postcodes, but about the
map references related to them. I just checked two of my data points.
In both cases both the easting and northing are different to what
streetmap has. Understandable, because postal codes cover either one
very large place (such as a campus) or several smaller places (such as a
row of houses), and of course because it's a matter of judgement which
hundred meter division is closest to a chosen point.
--
David Cantrell | Reprobate | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david
This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.
See also Openguides and its content, where you
have no way of knowing
whether it's cut n' pasted from $payware_restaurant_review_site or
copied from a book.
Only slightly; it's easy to prove something like a review
was copied -
compare it against the original. Reviews have a high uniqueness level[0], and
running a diff against a review and a possible copy will quickly expose if
it's original or not. Postcodes, on the other hand, are a very short
alphanumeric string for which provenance is almost(?) impossible to
determine.