Hi Andreas, Yes, the implementation part is where I'm lost at the moment. I'm wondering if there would be any interest from cemetery managers to agree to adopt Plus Codes as a standard. They could still use whatever Section/Row/Plot system they have now, but simply add the Plus Code. You touched on the advantages in that regardless of how the cemetery might be redesigned. Maybe we could think of Plus Codes and cemeteries as your final, permanent forwarding address.
For modern cemeteries, I would think that they could provide a simple lookup by name, date of birth or death, etc. They could then include the plot information and the Plus Code. I'm thinking of a race I just ran and the lookup information for the finishers; enter one or more qualifying bits of information and get the results. For older cemeteries, or those not actively maintained, projects similar to what billiongraves.com is doing could be encouraged. In fact, since billiongraves.com already has GPS coordinates, adding Plus Codes to their data would be relatively easy. I think the best solution would be to encourage cemeteries to adopt the Plus Codes as a standard. Implementation would be on the local cemetery level as I think that's where it would be most frequently used. Most people searching for a grave probably know which cemetery. Cemeteries would then be encouraged to make their information publicly available and shareable through sites like billiongraves or various genealogy sites. If anyone has any contacts with cemetery managers or their trade associations, it would be interesting to get their input. However this would be implemented I imagine it would have to be at almost zero cost as I'm sure they don't have tons of resources. However the standardization and permanence of the Plus Codes should have some appeal. On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 9:38:42 AM UTC-4, Andreas B wrote: > > Hi George, > > you are right, this is something where plus codes could be useful. The > size of cemeteries should allow to omit the first six or sometimes even > eight character, leaving a short string like "CF+GHJ" or even just "+GHJ" > to properly address the site of a specific grave on a cemetery, as long as > the cemetery's location is known. This code would continue to address a > site even when the whole cemetery gets redesigned or abandoned, making it > more useful than "section/row/plot" in the long term. > > The question is, what implementation of functionality is really necessary > for this to be adopted? Individual people can already find out the location > (and plus code) of a grave using their smartphones and Google Maps, then > shorten it as necessary and pass down the code to future generations. Could > there a need or demand for having functionality like this in a > special-purpose app? > -- Public site: http://www.openlocationcode.com/ Github project: https://github.com/google/open-location-code Demo site: http://plus.codes/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Plus Codes Community Forum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to open-location-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/open-location-code/705dff51-a4bd-49cd-9912-42e24b2647be%40googlegroups.com.
