4 ms·

Aren't longitude/latitude co-ordinates even more precise? There's a bunch of free apps that give that information out. Am I missing something? >I tried to get

Aren't longitude/latitude co-ordinates even more precise? There's a bunch of free apps that give that information out. Am I missing something? >I tried to get people to use longitude and latitude but that never caught on," Mr Sheldrick said. Well, if it's a life or death situation Mr Sheldrick, I'm pretty sure people would catch on fairly quick

pure-awesome 7y ago
I was thinking the same thing. I believe it's just easier for the average person to communicate three words than two multi-digit-precision numbers.
ExBritNStuff 7y ago
Isn't the argument also that when tired, stressed, cold, and maybe even injured, it's easier to tell a 999/911 operator three English words you're used to, rather than a string of numbers most people don't have any context for.
- laputan_machine 7y ago
  what context does 'bears.agitated.trampolines' mean? It has exactly the same amount of information as 53.958332, -1.080278, not only that but if you've _ever_ tried to say words over the telephone on a bad line, you end up having to do the NATO alphabet (did you say bears or chairs?), so you're reading out letters anyway. Not only _that_ but _everyone_ can plug long/lat co-ordinates into something and get an answer, they don't need a proprietary piece of software to achieve the same goal.
  - ExBritNStuff 7y ago
    "Bears... no, bears, you know like Yogi and Boo Boo. Agitated, like I'm getting now. Trampolines, those things you bounce up and down on". And when I said context, I didn't mean that they would understand what those three words point to, but rather they instantly can read those words having read them before. Long/Lat for most people isn't something they have ever used, so simple things like the "-1" might get missed. Admittedly the operator is likely to know that '1.080278' doesn't make sense given the country they are in and will automatically add the -, but it doesn't hurt to have options?
    - notahacker 7y ago
      Trouble is, you can also get locations for "bared.agitated.trampolines" and "fear.agitate.trampoline", and playing a game of charades isn't necessarily more intuitive to a stressed person than reading out a string of numbers - like a telephone number....
JulianMorrison 7y ago
It's easier to say a string of words than a string of numbers. There's also more intrinsic redundancy against small mistakes, that with a co-ordinate could move the designated area by hundreds of miles. I don't like the fact it's an opaque monopoly, but as a way to designate locations for human use, it's effective.
- johnday 7y ago
  If you're in the UK, moving the area by hundreds of miles would be obviously detectable. If you said to the operator "I don't know where I am, somewhere in the New Forest" and then you gave them a long/lat in Newcastle, they'd know to check again. Given that phone towers connect emergency calls to local dispatchers, even saying roughly where you are isn't necessary. Long-lat are highly effective precisely because almost anyone can read a number [including dyslexic people], and because the concept of a numeric pair as a GPS location is understood, at least in passing, by almost everybody.
  - JulianMorrison 7y ago
    And if you're in many places globally, particularly the backwoods, you could displace or misread a digit, point out a location well away from your position, and still be pointing at "a forest". Anyone can read a number? Hardly. A huge number of people would have trouble getting all the digits, precisely and in order without mistakes. Also, words have audio redundancy. If I say "apple" you get the same data as if I say "a_ple" or "_pple" or "app_e" or if you don't, you know there was a glitch and can ask for retransmission. That matters when eg: using a CB radio, or there's a blizzard blowing into a phone's pickup.
    - johnday 7y ago
      > Anyone can read a number? Hardly. A huge number of people would have trouble getting all the digits, precisely and in order without mistakes. You only need 3 decimal places for ~100m accuracy. So really you're talking a 5 digit number and a 4 digit number (in the UK). A sensible presentation of that data would not be hard to read for almost anyone who doesn't have sight problems. Moreover, a service like the theoretical "999.gov.uk" could log a person's GPS location and give them (say) a three word codephrase to pass to the dispatcher to lookup the record on the backend. No more or less effort, but not proprietary and harder to mess up. > Also, words have audio redundancy. If I say "apple" you get the same data as if I say "a_ple" or "_pple" or "app_e" or if you don't, you know there was a glitch and can ask for retransmission. This is true. I don't think there's a good way to fix that with numbers.

pure-awesome 7y ago

I was thinking the same thing. I believe it's just easier for the average person to communicate three words than two multi-digit-precision numbers.

ExBritNStuff 7y ago

Isn't the argument also that when tired, stressed, cold, and maybe even injured, it's easier to tell a 999/911 operator three English words you're used to, rather than a string of numbers most people don't have any context for.

laputan_machine 7y ago
what context does 'bears.agitated.trampolines' mean? It has exactly the same amount of information as 53.958332, -1.080278, not only that but if you've _ever_ tried to say words over the telephone on a bad line, you end up having to do the NATO alphabet (did you say bears or chairs?), so you're reading out letters anyway. Not only _that_ but _everyone_ can plug long/lat co-ordinates into something and get an answer, they don't need a proprietary piece of software to achieve the same goal.
- ExBritNStuff 7y ago
  "Bears... no, bears, you know like Yogi and Boo Boo. Agitated, like I'm getting now. Trampolines, those things you bounce up and down on". And when I said context, I didn't mean that they would understand what those three words point to, but rather they instantly can read those words having read them before. Long/Lat for most people isn't something they have ever used, so simple things like the "-1" might get missed. Admittedly the operator is likely to know that '1.080278' doesn't make sense given the country they are in and will automatically add the -, but it doesn't hurt to have options?
  - notahacker 7y ago
    Trouble is, you can also get locations for "bared.agitated.trampolines" and "fear.agitate.trampoline", and playing a game of charades isn't necessarily more intuitive to a stressed person than reading out a string of numbers - like a telephone number....

JulianMorrison 7y ago

It's easier to say a string of words than a string of numbers. There's also more intrinsic redundancy against small mistakes, that with a co-ordinate could move the designated area by hundreds of miles. I don't like the fact it's an opaque monopoly, but as a way to designate locations for human use, it's effective.

johnday 7y ago
If you're in the UK, moving the area by hundreds of miles would be obviously detectable. If you said to the operator "I don't know where I am, somewhere in the New Forest" and then you gave them a long/lat in Newcastle, they'd know to check again. Given that phone towers connect emergency calls to local dispatchers, even saying roughly where you are isn't necessary. Long-lat are highly effective precisely because almost anyone can read a number [including dyslexic people], and because the concept of a numeric pair as a GPS location is understood, at least in passing, by almost everybody.
- JulianMorrison 7y ago
  And if you're in many places globally, particularly the backwoods, you could displace or misread a digit, point out a location well away from your position, and still be pointing at "a forest". Anyone can read a number? Hardly. A huge number of people would have trouble getting all the digits, precisely and in order without mistakes. Also, words have audio redundancy. If I say "apple" you get the same data as if I say "a_ple" or "_pple" or "app_e" or if you don't, you know there was a glitch and can ask for retransmission. That matters when eg: using a CB radio, or there's a blizzard blowing into a phone's pickup.
  - johnday 7y ago
    > Anyone can read a number? Hardly. A huge number of people would have trouble getting all the digits, precisely and in order without mistakes. You only need 3 decimal places for ~100m accuracy. So really you're talking a 5 digit number and a 4 digit number (in the UK). A sensible presentation of that data would not be hard to read for almost anyone who doesn't have sight problems. Moreover, a service like the theoretical "999.gov.uk" could log a person's GPS location and give them (say) a three word codephrase to pass to the dispatcher to lookup the record on the backend. No more or less effort, but not proprietary and harder to mess up. > Also, words have audio redundancy. If I say "apple" you get the same data as if I say "a_ple" or "_pple" or "app_e" or if you don't, you know there was a glitch and can ask for retransmission. This is true. I don't think there's a good way to fix that with numbers.