We need to liberate the Postcode Address File
Britain’s highly granular postcode system underpins everything from mail delivery to e‑commerce, yet the central Postcode Address File (PAF) is a commercial asset of the privatised Royal Mail, making broad access expensive and legally restricted. Commenters argue this is a policy failure that hampers innovation and public services, contrasting the UK with countries that offer open, government-maintained address datasets or per-building codes. Proposals range from compensating Royal Mail and nationalising or duplicating the database, to relying on alternative geocoding systems—while noting that keeping such data accurate is as crucial as making it free.
How UK postcodes and PAF work
- UK postcodes are very fine-grained: often 1–15 buildings, sometimes part of a building.
- PAF (Postcode Address File) links postcodes to full delivery points and is maintained by Royal Mail’s constant on-the-ground operations.
- CodePoint Open already provides postcode→coordinates, but not full address lists, which is what many commercial “type your postcode, pick address” services rely on.
Arguments for opening PAF
- Many argue address data (without names) is low-risk public infrastructure akin to maps or weather data and should be open like in several EU countries.
- Open address data would lower barriers for e‑commerce, logistics, and public services and reduce duplicated, error‑prone private datasets.
- Some note the profit from selling PAF is relatively small compared to its systemic value.
Privacy and abuse concerns
- Several commenters see little abuse potential beyond postal spam, which is already common.
- Others want high barriers to discourage misuse and note risks arise when address data is linked with other datasets, not from the address file alone.
- Consensus in the thread leans toward “privacy risk is minimal compared to the benefits.”
International comparisons
- Examples of open or semi-open address systems: France (BAN), Netherlands, Belgium, Czech Republic, Switzerland, parts of Australia (G‑NAF), and detailed datasets in the US and Germany (with different granularity).
- Contrasts: proprietary or licensed systems in UK (PAF), Ireland (Eircode), Australia Post, Canada Post.
- Many highlight that other countries with strong privacy regimes manage open address data successfully.
Data quality and real‑world messiness
- Multiple anecdotes show how physical reality defies neat models: multiple buildings or stairwells sharing a number, no unit numbers, overlapping postcodes, entire campuses under one code.
- Commenters stress that “accurate address database” is intrinsically hard; the map is never the territory.
Ownership, law, and privatisation
- Strong criticism that PAF was included when Royal Mail was privatised; seen as a “public jewel” sold off.
- Legal debate: UK Parliament can legislate to free PAF, but compensation, treaty obligations, database rights, and precedent for future privatisations complicate this.
- Some suggest nationalisation or buying back PAF; others propose legal changes to database copyright.
Recreation and alternatives
- Proposals: rebuild from Ordnance Survey, National Address Gazetteer, OpenStreetMap, crowdsourcing, or big private map providers.
- Skepticism: without Royal Mail’s daily delivery updates, matching PAF’s accuracy and freshness is hard and expensive.
- Alternatives like what3words or Plus Codes are discussed; many dislike relying on another proprietary system and note technical and safety issues with w3w.