Re: [Geopriv] "House Number" misnamed?

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

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
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv