Yes, I know about What Three Words. Thanks for the suggestion! It’s a good opportunity to clarify the different aims of my project and W3W.
W3W is essentially the same as a GPS coordinate, except more memorable and easier to pronounce. A W3W place does not necessarily correspond to anything particular in the real world (like a settlement). Thus, W3W does not provide any added value for planning purposes.
There are some other downsides, such as W3W being proprietary and based on (IMO) bad design choices (e.g., hard to localize).
A better alternative to W3W is https://maps.google.com/pluscodes/. Plus Codes are indeed useful in places where some form of address is needed, and they are seeing some adoption in developing countries.
My goal is somewhat different: I would like to collect and publish the natural, given names of places, along with boundaries and metadata. The ideal unit here is the settlement, village, community, or neighborhood—this is the level at which the data would most support humanitarian work, health services, elections, infrastructure development, etc.
Here are some reasons why I think that units of ~100 households are ideal. The post itself has more examples.
It’s best for detailed planning. There is a type of humanitarian/development work that tries to reach every household in a region. Think vitamin A supplementation, vaccination programs, bednet distributions, cash transfers, … For these, one typically needs logistics per settlement, such as a contact person/agent/community health worker, some means of transportation, a specific amount of bednets/simcards/..., etc.
Of course, the higher levels of the location hierarchy (health areas, counties, districts, …) are also needed. But these are often not sufficient for planning. Also note that some programs use other units of planning altogether (e.g., schools or health centers), but the settlement is common.
It’s great for monitoring. The interventions mentioned above typically want to reach 100% settlement coverage. It makes sense to monitor things at that level, i.e., ensure that each settlement is reached.
It’s great for research. Many organizations use household sampling surveys. These are typically clustered, which means that researchers select a given number of “enumeration units”, and then sample a fixed number of households in each unit. Ideally, these enumeration units have roughly even size, clear and well-understood boundaries, and known population counts. The type of locations that I’m aiming for would make good enumeration units.
This type of place name is used and known. For example, people in the region will know where “Kalamu” is. There will likely be a natural contact person, such as a village chief. There will be a road that leads there and a way to obtain transportation. One can ask questions like “is there cellphone coverage in Kalamu” and get a good answer. In the majority of cases, a place name is a well-understood, unambiguous and meaningful concept.
The final reason is about data availability: settlement names are usually the most detailed names available, and their names are reasonably stable and accepted. The data exists, we only need to collect and aggregate and publish it. In contrast, streets or buildings often don’t have names, so we can’t easily have more fine-grained data than place names. Plus, there are some solutions like Plus Codes for situations where address-like data are preferred.
Yes, I know about What Three Words. Thanks for the suggestion! It’s a good opportunity to clarify the different aims of my project and W3W.
W3W is essentially the same as a GPS coordinate, except more memorable and easier to pronounce. A W3W place does not necessarily correspond to anything particular in the real world (like a settlement). Thus, W3W does not provide any added value for planning purposes.
There are some other downsides, such as W3W being proprietary and based on (IMO) bad design choices (e.g., hard to localize).
A better alternative to W3W is https://maps.google.com/pluscodes/. Plus Codes are indeed useful in places where some form of address is needed, and they are seeing some adoption in developing countries.
My goal is somewhat different: I would like to collect and publish the natural, given names of places, along with boundaries and metadata. The ideal unit here is the settlement, village, community, or neighborhood—this is the level at which the data would most support humanitarian work, health services, elections, infrastructure development, etc.
For more on this, and why I think we shouldn’t advocate for W3W, see: https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2019/03/why-bother-with-what-three-words/ for theoretical reasons and https://w3w.me.ss/ for some practical examples.
As you mention, https://plus.codes is indeed much better, although this is only tangentially related to your project
Can you expand on why the ideal unit is “the settlement, village, community, or neighborhood”?
Here are some reasons why I think that units of ~100 households are ideal. The post itself has more examples.
It’s best for detailed planning. There is a type of humanitarian/development work that tries to reach every household in a region. Think vitamin A supplementation, vaccination programs, bednet distributions, cash transfers, … For these, one typically needs logistics per settlement, such as a contact person/agent/community health worker, some means of transportation, a specific amount of bednets/simcards/..., etc.
Of course, the higher levels of the location hierarchy (health areas, counties, districts, …) are also needed. But these are often not sufficient for planning. Also note that some programs use other units of planning altogether (e.g., schools or health centers), but the settlement is common.
It’s great for monitoring. The interventions mentioned above typically want to reach 100% settlement coverage. It makes sense to monitor things at that level, i.e., ensure that each settlement is reached.
It’s great for research. Many organizations use household sampling surveys. These are typically clustered, which means that researchers select a given number of “enumeration units”, and then sample a fixed number of households in each unit. Ideally, these enumeration units have roughly even size, clear and well-understood boundaries, and known population counts. The type of locations that I’m aiming for would make good enumeration units.
This type of place name is used and known. For example, people in the region will know where “Kalamu” is. There will likely be a natural contact person, such as a village chief. There will be a road that leads there and a way to obtain transportation. One can ask questions like “is there cellphone coverage in Kalamu” and get a good answer. In the majority of cases, a place name is a well-understood, unambiguous and meaningful concept.
The final reason is about data availability: settlement names are usually the most detailed names available, and their names are reasonably stable and accepted. The data exists, we only need to collect and aggregate and publish it. In contrast, streets or buildings often don’t have names, so we can’t easily have more fine-grained data than place names. Plus, there are some solutions like Plus Codes for situations where address-like data are preferred.