Am 12.08.2018 um 01:27 schrieb john whelan: > > Note my opposition, notwithstanding my general concerns about > fiddling with the markets, is founded in that plus codes are just > simply not very good/fit for purpose. > > And discounting using pure lat and long your solution would be? A pure numeric (because we know the phone numbers work) grid reference relative to a suitable administrative entity.
BUT as this discussion shows, in the end you could simply number all buildings in a place and add those numbers to OSM (as the authoritative repository) and probably make everybody happier. People seem to be looking more for unique ids for their dwellings than something that is dependent on a relatively fine grained location/coordinate value, of which you may have multiple for one house. We know this works, it is still a very common system in alpine regions in Europe. Simon > > Thanks John > > On 11 August 2018 at 19:04, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch > <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote: > > > > Am 11.08.2018 um 16:39 schrieb Richard Fairhurst: > > ....is a good idea, > > apart from Simon, and even Homer nods sometimes. > > > > > Note my opposition, notwithstanding my general concerns about fiddling > with the markets, is founded in that plus codes are just simply > not very > good/fit for purpose. But as everybody should know that isn't a > hindrance to being successful in the marketplace and so that > aspect can > safely be ignored. > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk> > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
