 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
This thread never seemed to conclude with clear consensus as to whether folks see a need for both these specific location types rather than being able to use a common "civic" locationType. I went back through the threads and the majority of the responses indicated that both of the values should be the same (with Canada being the exception?). Since the thread did diverge somewhat (into how conversions etc. are done), I would like to do a quick query to see if folks are okay with removing those two values from the locationType in the HELD draft?
And, just to be precise, we're proposing changing locationType from a set of {any, civic, geodetic, postalCivic, jurisdictionalCivic, locationURI} to a set of
{any, civic, geodetic, locationURI}.
Regards,
Mary
Editor HELD
_______________________________________________ Geopriv mailing list Geopriv at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv