The extremely important thing that may be slipping through the cracks in this discussion is that the locationID should be the identifier for the whole content of the Location part of the record, not just one part of it.
In other words the following combination would be appropriate:
locationID="rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/GeographicRegion#AGS-TF" higherGeopgraphy="Argentina, Tierra del Fuego" country="Argentina" countryCode="AR" stateProvince="Tierra del Fuego" locality={null}
but the following combination would not:
locationID="rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/GeographicRegion#AGS-TF" higherGeopgraphy="Argentina, Tierra del Fuego" country="Argentina" countryCode="AR" stateProvince="Tierra del Fuego" locality="seashore on route from city of Ushuaia to Ushuaia airport"
I think this is somewhat impractical. We have realistic chances of having locationIDs only on a higher geographic level. But these are extremely useful when dealing with geographic uncertainty. It seems inappropriate to limit the use of gazetteer IDs - where available - for cities of villages to those records not having any further location details. Or do I miss something? Gregor