Question 1:
A researcher is using the 2017 PCCF, and has noted some issues:
“It appears that there are a significant number of postal codes missing. I had thought that these might be retired postal codes but there are none in the retired file for Manitoba (which is also suspicious). I had not thought about this earlier when I was just connecting postal/census areas and then doing summaries but in the last week we needed to do some work with specific postal codes and found a drop from the 2011 files.
Examples would be Churchill (R0B0E0), Stonewall/Teulon (R0C3B0), some in Portage (R1N3C4, R1N3C2), St. Laurent (R0C1P0) (and 300 others). These are currently active postal codes checking with Canada Post and existed in the last PCCF.”
Would it be possible to have someone look into this?
Answer 1:
We are aware that many postal codesOM did not go through our geocoding process in the June version, and therefore did not make it to the PCCF file. We did a lot of work on getting these postal codesOM back into the product file. We have also appended records that were coded to only the CSD/SGC to the PCCF file. As these do not currently geocode (to at least a Dissemination Area), they do not form part of the core PCCF product, but can be useful for using postal codes to get to CSD.
Also, since the postal code is intended for the distribution of mail by Canada Post the files undergo changes on a regular basis. In some instances, postal codes are retired and re-birthed with a different deliver mode type or the address information for postal codes is changed.
Question 2:
The researcher has responded:
“I only sent a small number of postal codes and they are relatively important, at least in Manitoba. I can send the whole list if necessary.
I am thinking the numbers are large enough and the areas of interest that it should be checked. If this is an issue that is a more general problem (e.g. Canada wide) not just in our little province with a few hundred postal codes.
The postal codes are not retired. I realize there are changes, but the bulk of the codes should not have moved. Many [I have not checked all} of them existed in the 2011 associated PCCF files.
Interesting comment regarding the CSD given some rural delivery, I am not sure I am interpreting what this means. Some postal codes that represent larger areas or only CSD are not included? “
Since I have not seen any other similar inquiries, I too wonder if this is just a Manitoba issue? The user has offered to send the whole list of missing postal codes. Would that be of any use, or would Subject Matter prefer to communicate directly with the user?
Answer 2:
We have received the following response from Subject Matter:
“The postal code team geocodes/links the postal codes as received from Canada Post Corporation to a census geography. They try to link at the lowest level possible, a block face. If they can’t do that, they move up to try to link to a dissemination block, if not then a dissemination area, if not then a CSD. Because the CSDs, especially in rural areas, can be very large, so if the only link between a postal code and a census geography is at the CSD level, it is not automatic that these postal codes are included in the PCCF. The team has made efforts to include more of them manually.
We are not saying that postal codes that represent rural CSDs are not included. That is a misinterpretation.
We were not able to provide specifics about why these particular postal codesOM were not found in the Dec 2017 release of the PCCF. However, we checked each against the newest internal release of the product, and they did exist in that file. We are hoping to disseminate a new version of the file sometime this summer. The postal codesOM in question should be available in that new file."
