Open Location Code (aka "Plus Codes") as destination input

Open Location Codes (OLC, also branded as "Plus Codes") are an open method for compressing latitude/longitude coordinates into either 6 unambiguous alphanumeric characters + a nearby populated place, or 10 alphanumeric characters alone. (Technically, there are other character lengths that could be used, but those are the only ones seeing practical usage.) It's an open, royalty-free specification at https://github.com/google/open-location-code, with free reference implementations in many different languages.

The main problem this would solve for me is copying specific locations from Google Maps into ABRP. Some of that difficulty is on Google, since they appear to have intentionally made it more difficult than necessary to copy lat/long coordinates in the decimal format ABRP will understand, while they've made it very easy to copy their Plus Codes. Nonetheless, while implementing OLC support would improve interoperability with Google, it wouldn't actually depend on Google—Google could totally drop all support for them and OL codes would continue to work. They don't depend on any Google servers, subscriptions, or other resources. They just need a generic geocoder to geocode the populated place part of the short codes, which ABRP already has.

Another benefit is that OLC is a relatively easy and error-resistant way of passing specific locations (down to 3 meter precision) verbally, in handwriting, or through any random system for storing or sending text. You could use it to write down the location of a secret campsite in a national forest on a post-it and give it to your friend, for example, and be confident that they can easily type it into ABRP and find the right spot. The system avoids ambiguous characters like 1, I, and l to make these use cases work better.

At this point, the skeptical will sometimes bring up a competing system and ask why implement OLC instead of that system. There's good answers to those questions on the specification’s Github . The short summary is: no other system is already built into the world's most popular navigation app, and some of those systems (e.g. what3words) are not open, imposing both licensing costs and restrictions on anyone who wants to implement them. Implementing OLC requires only ABRP's internal development costs, but no ongoing license costs, restrictions, or external dependencies.