7 ms·
I'd doubt limiting land space would be very helpful -- given that the each character encodes 33 possibilities (alphabet + digits, without O, I, or L for clarity
by akrolsmir 12y ago
I'd doubt limiting land space would be very helpful -- given that the each character encodes 33 possibilities (alphabet + digits, without O, I, or L for clarity), you'd need to reduce the space by a factor of 33 (~97%) to remove a single character.
Huffman coding would be interesting, but the tradeoff would be that since locations are no longer standardized to 10 characters, you'd lose the validation aspect of it (not to mention you'd have to change the name =).
Edit: Apparently S and Z are also missing, so 31 possibilities.
- Terr_ 12y agoAlternately you could keep the same number of characters and use the "extra" to encode more accuracy. Trimming it from 10m accuracy down to 3m sounds very useful for finding stores and homes in denser cities.