Well, it’s complicated. Like the others have said, it’s about coordinate systems. However, there are parts of this story that do have a geographic component, from more localized coordinate systems to projected coordinate systems with a translation from some coordinate into one that is anchored in a different location (projected coordinate systems are typically a grid definition from a defined point on the earth that is within reasonable distance from the grid itself). Some of these are for historical reasons, some are practical, and it also can get a bit tricky where a “coordinate system” is not just the definition of coordinate parameters (ie. X, Y, Z) but how those translate to a global surface (so, for example, the ellipse that represent the globe of the earth is defined differently in different coordinate systems).
The second part to this then become geoids, which are definitions (in grid form, for the most part) of gravity influences on the “water level” (but not terrain; that’s an added hot potato on top) of the given ellipsis. Often a coordinate system and geoids go hand in hand, but for a variety of reasons (systems, hardware, time, history, practicalities, etc.) they sometimes even mix those. Madness.
So, back to the original question; in a general sense, EPSG codes are just a definition of a coordinate system. But you can say that some are more local than others. Some are global, like WGS84 (EPSG 4326), others very local (EPSG 6628 is Zone 1 in Hawaii), and anything in-between. In some sense, you can pick a point on the globe, and find out what coordinate systems are the most local or most applicable, and so on, but that doesn’t mean they are “the coordinate system for that location” or that it’s better or more suited or anything like that. These are more preferences of what data you’ve got and what you want to do with it.
In the end, though, this is not a Cesium question, but a geospatial question, so you can maybe get better help on these things over here; https://gis.stackexchange.com/
Cheers,
Alex