Re: [Geopriv] "House Number" misnamed?

["James M. Polk" <jmpolk at cisco.com>]

At 01:37 PM 10/26/2009, Rosen, Brian wrote:
> 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 at 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 at 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 at ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >