Ooru

Against the alternatives

Why not just use what3words or Plus Codes?

6 min read

Ooru is not the first grid-based addressing scheme, and most of its design decisions are reactions to specific properties of the existing ones.

SystemHierarchicalTopologicalInterpretableError behaviour
OoruYes — 3 nested levelsYes — adjacency computableYes — words are semantically orderedQuiet: a wrong word lands nearby
what3wordsNo — one flat 3 m gridNo — neighbours unrelated by designNo — words are deliberately arbitraryLoud: a wrong word lands on another continent
Open Location Code (Plus Codes)Yes — each pair of characters refinesPartly — neighbours share a prefixNo — base-20 characters carry no meaningQuiet, and hard to notice in an opaque code
GeohashYes — prefix refinesPoor — cells adjacent in space can differ in the first characterNoQuiet, with pathological jumps at cell boundaries
MGRS / UTM grid referenceYes — digit pairs refineYes — genuinely metricNo — pure digitsQuiet; also unspeakable over a phone

Against Plus Codes, which are the closest relative

Open Location Code already gets the two structural properties right: it is hierarchical and roughly topological, and it is an open standard with no licensing. If your requirement is a hierarchical grid code, use Plus Codes — that is the honest recommendation.

What Ooru adds is the thing a code cannot have: the identifier is memorable and its parts mean something. 7J4VXMV6+8Q and cavern.organza.panther name comparable areas, but only one survives being read aloud over a bad phone line, written on a parcel by hand, or recalled an hour later. And only one lets a reader form any mental picture of the region from the identifier alone.

The address space

10×12 × 20×20 × 20×20 = 1,92,00,000 addresses of 12.5 m
Three words over the level lattices, at the canonical depth.

For comparison, what3words needs 40,000³ = 64 trillion combinations to cover the planet at 3 m, which is why its vocabulary runs to 40,000 words per position and includes many that are hard to spell. Restricting to one metropolitan area is what makes a 920-word vocabulary of short, common, concrete nouns sufficient — and that restriction is the reason the words can be chosen for legibility rather than merely for count.