As long as we have clever mappings like this (two-letter codes to
whatever, especially if/as/when they are ISO standards), I am OK with
data remaining as two-letter codes. (I am not thrilled, but if there
is a way to explain how the dots are connected and how to connect
other dots given clever mappings, great). I am glad we are having
this discussion. I'm not sure whether pedantic, but it is an
interesting and distinct boundary.
(One I made off list to Richard Weait and Elliott Plack).
Still, for things that need their state address entered in Arizona,
I'll do that, instead of AZ. Just me? No.
Seriously, understanding a more total semantic (instead of a single
or vague concept) as represented by a syntax unit, like a two letter
abbreviation, is something we should wave various colored flags
about. Careful that as many as possible both discuss and understand
larger issues. (Talk-us is a larger stage).
It seems to me that OSM remains resilient, talking to itself
(ourselves) well. So far, so good. (Nothing like dotting an i or
two and crossing some ts here and there).
SteveA
California
On 2014-11-07 22:35, Greg Morgan wrote:
In contrast to the addr:state debate that we are having, I always
use addr:country key with the "US" value. The difference here is that
addr:country is an agreed upon ISO standard.
To be pedantic, the two-letter state abbreviations are codified in ISO 3166-2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:US
The standard covers virtually all of the countries in ISO 3166-1
with alphabetic, numeric, or alphanumeric codes. In the U.S., the
codes are instantly recognizable as USPS abbreviations, but I don't
know whether the codes elsewhere are as commonly recognizable.
--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
