William Entriken

I think the Google Groups makes sense https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/open-location-code

Recommended tag: implementation request (but actually recommending to close as out-of-scope in #434)

Recommended tag: documentation

Understood. I'm on it.

This issue is partially fixed at https://github.com/google/open-location-code/pull/463. All documentation is updated. And the implementations are not updated. I would like to help more here. But requesting, please, a review of...

Separately, this is mentioned in https://github.com/google/open-location-code/wiki/Naming-guidelines and that needs to be brought into one of the normative specifications

Recommended tags: implementation specification documentation

This is partially fixed at https://github.com/google/open-location-code/pull/463 The documentation is updated to make consistent and correct usage of Plus Code versus Open Location Code. Implementations are not updated. I hope this...

The plus codes specification (to be written) notes that a specification location must be provided in lat/long. This is a known and documented part of this project. Recommending to close...

I assert that this project doesn't have a (complete) specification even for global codes or for implementations. Many ideas are here but this is not specification-level work. I am working...