>BLD, FLR, UNIT, ROOM, SEAT would be "obsoleted", in the same sense A6 was
>obsoleted by RD.
I have a big problem with taking these out and
leaving them with no IANA registration, as they
are unique features IMO, and they exist, therefore they should remain.
>Apartment number doesn't go in HNO. Milepost number would, I propose.
I'm good with this
>Can you cite an example where an apartment number is not a subset of a
>street address (that is, you have a RoaD name, what we now call a "House
>Number", and then there is some kind of subdivision?
I have no issues with apartment number being
UNIT, which is a subset of HNO. We agree here.
>"INT" would define everything that is a subdivision of from the entity
>addressed by RD (and it's parts) and what is now called HNO.
>
>You would encode something as simple as a house with an apartment as
><RD>Main</RD>
><HNO>123</HNO>; with the current name
><INT N="Apartment">B</INT>
I'm not seeing what you gain by removing <UNIT> B</UNIT> from the above
>We would encode I85N Milepost 123 as
><STP>Interstate</STP>
><RD>85</RD>
><POD>N</POD>
><HNP>Milepost</HNP>
><HNO>123</HNO>
this example seems fine
James
>Brian
>
>
>On 10/26/09 2:27 PM, "James Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> > At 01:05 PM 10/26/2009, Rosen, Brian wrote:
> >> Yes, Apartment number currently goes in
> ³UNIT², but my ³INT² proposal would
> >> change that.
> >
> > exactly how many _existing_ CAtypes are you
> > planning on obsoleting within your INT proposal?
> >
> > FWIW - Apartments can be external just as easily
> > as internal (and they're fairly uniform in
> > numbering) so this one, for now, shouldn't be removed
> >
> >> It does NOT go in ³HNO².
> >
> > what does not go in HNO? Apartment or post marker?
> >
> >
> >> Brian
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/26/09 1:52 PM, "James Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> At 11:00 AM 10/26/2009, Rosen, Brian wrote:
> >>>> In the original PIDF-LO definition in
> >> RFC4119, we have a field called "House
> >>>> Number" (and a "House Number Suffix"). Is this field misnamed?
> >>>>
> >>>> Suppose you had a "milepost" on a road, or
> on a railroad, or even a hiking
> >>>> trail. Would you expect the marker number (which is usually miles or
> >>>> kilometers as measured from an end of the
> >> road/railroad/trail) to appear in
> >>>> the "HNO" field?
> >>>>
> >>>> I think yes, which means that the field is
> misnamed. I would suspect that
> >>>> the appetite of the work group to actually change the name of the field
> >>>> would be low, although I would probably like to do something that would
> >>>> generalize the use of the field.
> >>>>
> >>>> A more subtle question. In 4119, under
> HNO, it says "numeric part only".
> >>>> If the post marker was "125.5" is that
> numeric enough, or would we have to
> >>>> use the suffix?
> >>>
> >>> you're differentiating this sufficiently from apartment number, right?
> >>>
> >>> because I see a street address belonging to an apartment complex,
> >>> then an apartment number belonging to an individual apartment.
> >>>
> >>> If you are saying the HNO is the street address "number" (and not
> >>> confused by the apartment number) - then
> this generalization is agreeable.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Brian
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Geopriv mailing list
> >>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
