[AccessD] Re: question on normalization

Zone Improvement Plan

77418 (mine) is shared among 4 place names.

At 10:53 AM 3/13/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 08:45:01 -0500
>From: Tina Norris Fields <tinanfields at torchlake.com>
>Subject: Re: [AccessD] question on normalization
>To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
>         <accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
>Message-ID: <4053105D.8060108 at torchlake.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
>Okay, I just wonder what happened to the original intent of Zip codes -
>wasn't that to uniquely identify delivery locations?  That certainly is
>what I remember - unique codes to make it possible for automatic and
>correct mail sorting by machines.  Hmmmmmmmmmmmm <sits scratching her head>
>Tina
>
>Charlotte Foust wrote:
>
> >Unfortunately, while zip codes are supposed to be unique, they may be
> >shared among several small towns or a town may have multiple zip codes.
> >Some buildings even have unique zip codes, but generally zip codes
> >belong to post offices.  I would say they were not a good candidate for
> >a primary key in dealing with addresses.  I've worked with postal
> >databases and seen some of the "duplicate" zips, where several small
> >towns share a post office and a zip code.  A further complication is the
> >+four extension.
> >
> >Charlotte Foust