- relative: in relation to the viewer (e.g. The mouse is to my right)
- absolute: using some coordinate system, such as cardinal (e.g. Plant is on the North side of the room)
- intrinsic: relative, but with respect to another object and not the viewer (e.g. the TV is on top of the TV stand which is opposite of the door)
It is worth mentioning that this is overly simplified and that there is a lot more nuance to all this.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_and_spatial_cognition
Alot of the literature also makes hay about these language speakers having preternatural skills at maintaining a cardinal orientation mentally. I don't doubt they're good at it, but I suspect that that skill is something that has only recently become uncommon in the industrialized world. As a kid growing up in the U.S., being able to keep track of cardinal orientation was something I understood as a skill expected of men, and not by tracking the sun or consciously using other obvious markers. It was quite obviously a vestigial gendered skill at that point--noteworthy if you had any proficiency at it--but clearly one within recent memory of male adults. Moreover, AFAIU, there's also research showing that Americans tend to use cardinal directions and navigation more than many European countries, presumably related to our lived geography.
Interestingly, the literature on Guugu Yimithirr says that cardinal orientation accuracy relative to the Earth is much better the further away the described location. For descriptions closer to home (i.e. the central city/village of the group), accuracy was often off by 30+ degrees, seemingly because cardinal orientation is more dominated by familiar local topographic features. Moreover, IIRC, it seems cardinal direction isn't absolute in these languages. Which, at least intuitively, makes alot of sense to me. For example, the Bay Area is askew; when giving directions "north" is closer to north-west (middle peninsula, East Bay) or north-by-north-west (city), but everybody (conscious or not) is very consistent about the rotation and bending.
Wahern is referring to the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis[0] (Linguistic Relativity). I do find that this is also often misunderstood. I'm in your camp about the directions. I've always viewed linguistic relativity as just saying that your language is a framework. It should be relatively obvious that if you use something a lot that you'll be good at it. You'll find that mountaineers, sailors, and pilots are better than most at of the population because they use cardinal directions a lot. It is experimentally provable that you can make your brain prioritize rather arbitrary things. For example, get a watch and set it to beep every hour. You'll probably get a better sense of time (especially if you can get different tones for 15 minute intervals). So what I'm saying is that the weak Sapir-Whorf is well recognized (what we discussed) but very few realistically believe the strong Sapir-Whorf.
But either way, if anyone reading these comments hasn't been interested in languages before I promise you that they are a lot cooler than you imagine. Far from just communication (which is rather incredible in the first place) and if you're interested in LLMs you should learn a minimal amount of linguistics.
The E roads of Europe are generally numbered that way too[1], though exceptions exist.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_E-road_network#N...
I think generally in Europe people think in terms of landmarks rather than fixed directions.