Stream: IG creation
Topic: usps codes errors
Eric Haas (Jul 01 2020 at 23:25):
The terminology server usps codesystem is incomplete based upon my research:
I can confirm all of these codes except 'UM' here: https://pe.usps.com/text/pub28/28apb.htm which is referenced from here: https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-history/state-abbreviations.htm
ValueSet/us-core-usps-state: ValueSet.compose[0].include[0].concept[3] warning The code AS is not valid in the system https://www.usps.com/
ValueSet/us-core-usps-state: ValueSet.compose[0].include[0].concept[11] warning The code FM is not valid in the system https://www.usps.com/
ValueSet/us-core-usps-state: ValueSet.compose[0].include[0].concept[13] warning The code GU is not valid in the system https://www.usps.com/
ValueSet/us-core-usps-state: ValueSet.compose[0].include[0].concept[25] warning The code MH is not valid in the system https://www.usps.com/
ValueSet/us-core-usps-state: ValueSet.compose[0].include[0].concept[29] warning The code MP is not valid in the system https://www.usps.com/
ValueSet/us-core-usps-state: ValueSet.compose[0].include[0].concept[45] warning The code PW is not valid in the system https://www.usps.com/
ValueSet/us-core-usps-state: ValueSet.compose[0].include[0].concept[51] warning The code UM is not valid in the system https://www.usps.com/
Grahame Grieve (Jul 01 2020 at 23:52):
you're right. I've added them - will be next time I upgrade tx.fhir.org
Eric Haas (Jul 02 2020 at 00:05):
ty!
Frank McKinney (Jul 02 2020 at 13:15):
While you're updating, I noticed these additional ones that Eric didn't mention:
AA, AE, AP
These are the US armed forces 'state' codes, which are also in the USPS doc Eric pointed to.
Thx!
Grahame Grieve (Jul 02 2020 at 13:22):
I added them too
Rob Hausam (Jul 02 2020 at 22:17):
@Grahame Grieve @Frank McKinney Frank and I have discussed this issue. It's good to get the missing codes added and that will solve the immediate need. But there are a couple of things that I'm still looking at. The value set for this in STU3 (https://hl7.org/fhir/STU3/valueset-usps-state.html) was removed in R4 and CI - and presumably is replaced by the US Core value set (http://hl7.org/fhir/us/core/ValueSet/us-core-usps-state), as this is a US-specific terminology? That seems rather straightforward. The other question that I have is regarding the url. The "https://www.usps.com/" url is the home page for the USPS organization, and doesn't have anything to do specifically with the state abbreviations at all (and we don't normally use the "https" prefix). I assume that this url wasn't ever vetted in any way with the USPS for this use - and undoubtedly it was chosen before the role of HTA in managing this came about? Similar to our recent discussions for NUCC, presumably (whether we continue to use this particular url or not) we should also go through the HTA process with these "state abbreviation" codes?
Grahame Grieve (Jul 02 2020 at 22:21):
it certainly predates the HTA process. We can discuss changing it through the HTA process, but we have to count the cost of changing it
Rob Hausam (Jul 02 2020 at 22:24):
Yes, agree that we certainly need to count the cost (if it wasn't such a non-specific url, I probably wouldn't even think about that).
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
