[openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website] Add OpenLocationCode to OSM website (#1807)

[Peter]

Hi, answering each one by user and all by topic:

* @bjohas , thanks, as you investing time at Wiki, I will answer details and help at there.

* @sommerluk, thanks. About your assertion "shortening-code isn’t a black-box (...) that’s documentated", is a logic  contradiction  of your other assertion "relies on some sort of geocoding". Seems that you say "is a black-box". Is important a technical consensus here because (by my technical opinion) **will be impossible  Nomintatim to reproduce the Google's PlusCode behaviour**... There are no algorithm to copy/paste (as OLC for *global pluscodes*) when resolving context for *local pluscodes*.<br>PS: (re- at simonpoole) "wasn't advocating for short codes"... If there are a consensus about **only global codes** proposal here, is ok (and I change what seems my desagree to an explicit "YES I AGREE with this proposal!").
 
* @bjohas, thanks and ok, I am talking at [wiki's talking page](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposal_Open_Location_Code).

* @tomhughes, thanks, I upvoted. Sorry by all pollution here, was a "first contact" to check status of all details. Your summarization is important to all us here, to check consensus:<br/> *"That is whether to support OLC in the search box"*.

* about "consensus of the issue", seems that whe must to review positions of each one **after** [wiki page "Proposal Open Location Code"](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_Open_Location_Code) completed. So, seems that the main discussion is taking place at [the wiki's talk page](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposal_Open_Location_Code)... After completed perhaps will be fine to vote/check positions about the well-defined proposal.

* about the perspective (big picture) of this proposal: *"Why is relevant for openstreetmap?"*, seems that there no consensus about "how much important", but we need to reduce expectations. I not see any formal "relevance checking"  [at issues](https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+),  so seems that we can agree and "play the boat" as little group, after some consensus. <br/>My personal view is that the OSM search engine need some "contextualizer tags", so PlusCodes ([its *code syntax*](https://github.com/google/open-location-code/wiki/Supporting-OLC-in-your-app)) are only one of these,  only the first to be implemented   to check usage statistics in the OSM's search-box. The other candidates (other good code syntax standards) are <br>`geo:{approximateCoordinates}`  of  [RFC 5870](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeoURI) and  `iso:{countryAbbreviation}` of [ISO 3166-2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2)... To discuss later in other issue. 


-- 
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/1807#issuecomment-451730039
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/rails-dev/attachments/20190106/ab6f7d64/attachment-0001.html>