zlacker

>>voxada+(OP)
ZIP codes are an emergent property of the mail delivery system. While the author might consider this a bad thing, this makes them "good enough" on multiple axes in practice. They tend to be:

- Well-known (everybody knows their zip code)

- Easily extracted (they're part of every address, no geocoding required)

- Uniform-enough (not perfect, but in most cases close)

- Granular-enough

- Contiguous-enough by travel time

Notably, the alternatives the author proposes all fail on one or more of these:

- Census units: almost nobody knows what census tract they live in, and it can be non-trivial to map from address to tract

- Spatial cells: uneven distribution of population, and arbitrary division of space (boundaries pass right through buildings), and definitely nobody knows what S2 or H3 cell they live in.

- Address: this option doesn't even make sense. Yes, you can geocode addresses, but you still need to aggregate by something.

>>jonas2+Xd
Well you hit on all the points that discuss the compromises that zip codes offer. Just because you have them in your data doesn't mean that they can produce anything useful. You are correct that no one knows their census unit is (if you are thinking from someone entering this on a website) but collecting location or address will be a lot better.

Fact is a lot of web data contains a zip but if you can collect something better it will usually render better results. Unless you are analyzing shipments then that is fine.