Is there a way to link Chats (or even Private groups) to a location with a label/tag?
This way you could find and join local Chats. Think of groups like "Expats in Cityname", "Christians in Cityname", Homeschooling, Musicians, ... They can be free to join, payed or WoT based.
nostr:npub1arkn0xxxll4llgy9qxkrncn3vc4l69s0dz8ef3zadykcwe7ax3dqrrh43w nostr:npub1jlrs53pkdfjnts29kveljul2sm0actt6n8dxrrzqcersttvcuv3qdjynqn
Maybe NIP-32 using ISO-3166-2, with self reporting:
```
{
"kind": 40,
"tags": [
["L", "ISO-3166-2"],
["l", "IT-MI", "ISO-3166-2"]
],
"content": "{\"name\": \"Milan Cats\", \"about\": \"A test channel.\", \"picture\": \"https://placekitten.com/200/200\"}",
...
}
```
💡
👊🏻 
Cool! Seems simple. nostr:npub1arkn0xxxll4llgy9qxkrncn3vc4l69s0dz8ef3zadykcwe7ax3dqrrh43w is that how you do it in yondar?
No, currently Yondar keeps key=value data in the GeoJSON properties, but my NIP is hoping to move that data into tags where crowdsourcing can take place: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/927
Btw: nostr:npub10000003zmk89narqpczy4ff6rnuht2wu05na7kpnh3mak7z2tqzsv8vwqk you a Milan cat? I've lived there for a year and loved it.
No, but in the past I visited it quite often for work. Yes, it is a beautiful and energetic city!
This would work, also maybe a geohash tag, I believe that's what yondar does
Right yeah, I think so too. Thanks!
I like this but ultimately a geohash would be best and there is no way to apply a geohash to another event... labels don't really support geohashes. It could work but there is no standard yet.
On the original event, publishing a g tag with the geohash is the right way to do it. Crowdsourcing g tags doesn't exist yet.
Building off daniele's example:
```
{
"kind": 40,
"tags": [
["L", "geohash"],
["l", "9qqj3", "geohash"],
["e", "10fbc672..."]
],
"content": "I'm tagging the location for this event",
...
}
```
This could work? But geo clients need to implement it/expect it.
nostr:npub1jlrs53pkdfjnts29kveljul2sm0actt6n8dxrrzqcersttvcuv3qdjynqn what do you think? Is this misuse of labels? 🤔 feels like a hack kinda but maybe not
I think this is actually ok, because while geohashes are an ID, it's an ID that applies to potentially many events, so it makes sense to filter by the l value.
Some other nitpicks about this example I just noticed, kind 40's should just use a `g` tag since it's applying the geotag to itself. If that's the convention, then following NIP 32 `["L", "#g"], ["l", "9qqj3", "#g"]` is probably better when tagging other events.
