"Pine Hill" is excellent information if the parties involved agree on what it means. You can say that it's meaningless to a person that doesn't, but in a conte

"Pine Hill" is excellent information if the parties involved agree on what it means. You can say that it's meaningless to a person that doesn't, but in a context where everyone does you can't argue that it's "low quality information". In the same sense, totally disregarding that people sometimes share a cultural heritage, personal history or conversational context and use this to their advantage, "Yes" or "No" would be really awful information. Nothing is a good conveyor of information by itself. What does BAJASU-BONEXO say about anything before I stuff it into a computer that arbitrarily translate it to a set of coordinates (an existing system invented to solve the same problem)? If everyone needs a device to decode it, what advantage does it have over just sharing the coordinates? With 1 meter granularity, what prevents people from assigning different names to what is essentially the same place, in a way that potentially prevents either of the hundreds of thousands of names generated for a 1 km^2 Pine Hill from ever catching on? Don't get me wrong, I think it's a neat idea. Turning coordinates into pronounceable words means that you could easily share an exact location over a phone line. It's just that I think that it's arrogant to say that the tradition of naming places is somehow inferior to what essentially is a totally different thing. To present them as something that is meant to replace an "old algorithm" (referring to a practice that is mostly non-algorithmic) is big-headed and geographically and culturally ignorant.