Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Standardised Place Names

Expand Messages
  • Stewart Milar
    Gaylon, I would venture to possibly disagree with your explanation of entered (original) place names and standardised place names. nFS has been deliberately
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 8, 2009
      Gaylon,

      I would venture to possibly disagree with your explanation of entered
      (original) place names and standardised place names.



      nFS has been deliberately set up to allow the place names to be entered as
      we wish to see them - which allows one to follow the genealogical standard
      of using a place name to match the particular time period. The chosen,
      preferred (original) place name may or may not match with a standardised
      place name - nFS advice is that it does not have to.



      The displayed place name on nFS screens is the entered (original) place name
      for any particular event. Using the "Details" screen, hovering the cursor
      over the place name will display any matching standardised place name - if
      the entered place name was matched with a standardised place name on entry.



      I advice my students to not to be at all worried or concerned what the
      standardised place name is, but to carefully enter the place name as you
      wish to see it (using best genealogical practice) - and in most cases it is
      likely to match with a standardised location - but don't worry if it does
      not; nFS feedback have said they are interested in learning of place names
      that do not match with standardised place names.



      Sometimes nFS will give you a choice of standardised place names - where the
      entered (original) place name is superimposed in a lighter, smaller text
      matched with a number of standardised place names in the drop down box of
      standardised place names.



      The standardised place names I believe serve two purposes - (1) relates the
      location to a modern political map and (2) facilitates matching on searches.



      We have some very particular difficulties with nFS standardised place names
      in the British Isles that are detrimental to using the standardised place
      names as the "original" entered place name - in particular, due to its
      mapping with the current political structure resulting in the use of
      "United Kingdom" (that is - "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
      Ireland") as the final country designation for all time periods - including
      when the UK did not exist; and secondly, that many place locations in the UK
      are doubly defined in the standardised place name list due to many of the
      historic counties having been divided into a new tier of local government
      called "Unitary Authorities" resulting in many towns and villages having a
      standardised entry under the historic county and also under the Unitary
      Authority - and as UA's have changed they could be under multiple UA
      designations as well. But - as I said above, it really is of no consequence
      what form the standardised place name takes - it could just as easily be a
      GPS reference - what is important is what you believe it should be from the
      records you are working from - and it could so easily change in the future -
      in the UK, Scotland is always on the political verge of voting to leave the
      "United Kingdom".



      In conclusion - there are very good reasons for nFS storing two place name
      locations for each event and we should use them as they are best suited to
      the circumstances and not assume that "standardised" is best.



      Regards,

      Stewart Millar





      From: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      Gaylon Findlay
      Sent: 08 April 2009 17:33
      To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] sysncing problem with large amounts of data



      George, Scott:

      In most cases like this, nFS has associated the various place names with
      a standardized name. If you look at the record on the FamilySearch
      screens, you won't see these variations. AQ purposely chooses to give
      you the complete list. (We're thinking of someday giving you an option
      to show just one value, like FamilySearch does.)

      For example, if you have the following places in FamilySearch (taken
      from an actual record):

      Minden, ON, Canada
      Minden, Ontario, Canada
      Minden, ON
      Canada, Minden, Ontario, Ontario

      All 4 of these match up to the standardized name of "Minden, Ontario,
      Canada". In AQ, you will see all 4 of these. In FamilySearch, you will
      only see one, as they all resolve to a common standardized place. So
      which one will you see in FamilySearch? Apparently the longest. So
      FamilySearch shows you this:

      Canada, Minden, Ontario, Ontario

      You won't have any idea from the FamilySearch screens that the other 3
      variations exits. Sometimes we wonder whether we should have AQ show a
      single value, as is done in FamilySearch, or show them all. But without
      a lot of artificial intelligence, AQ too often would show you what would
      seem like the wrong place name, which doesn't seem helpful.

      I hope this helps you understand why you are looking at such a long list
      of places :-)

      Gaylon

      George Wright wrote:
      > I've observed the same thing. Your suggestion would shorten the number of
      lines in the places list for that event for that person. But it would not
      reduce the number of nFs entries for that person. In other words, if 85
      people had performed ordnances already, it would still read 85.
      >
      > By the way. This duplication is presently a function of New Family Search,
      not Ancestral Quest.
      >
      > George E. Wright
      > Encinitas, California
      >
      > --- On Tue, 4/7/09, Scott Scheibe <dsscheibe@...
      <mailto:dsscheibe%40earthlink.net> > wrote:
      >
      > From: Scott Scheibe <dsscheibe@...
      <mailto:dsscheibe%40earthlink.net> >
      > Subject: [AQ_NFS] sysncing problem with large amounts of data
      > To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AQ_NFS%40yahoogroups.com>
      > Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 9:12 PM
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > It has been rattling around in my head the last few days the NFS
      > could solve a lot of the duplicate data by standardizing location names.
      >
      > Say I've got one ancestor and dozens of people had submitted him
      > with various combinations of birth dates and places. Not much could be
      > done about 12 Feb 1780 v abt 1780, ect.
      >
      > But a lot of them all have 12 Feb 1780 but have some variation of
      > Sugar Run, Lee, Virginia
      >
      > Sugar,LEE,VI,
      > Sugar Run, Virginia
      > Sugar Run, Lee,VI ect..
      >
      > If they were all the same location it could be standardized as one
      location
      > name instead of showing each variation of the same name. I've seen dozens
      > of places were it was the same place but was abbreviated, had the
      > county/didn' t have, various abbreviations of the state, county and town
      > name, some have USA, and so on and on creating large amounts of useless
      > unnecessary data for every event..
      >
      > Scott Scheibe
      > dsscheibe@earthlink .net
      > <http://scottsworld. info/gene. htm>
      >
      > Descendants of Capt. Henry WOODWARD
      > <http://woodward. scottsworld. info/>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • James Pitt
      Absolutely Stewart, I couldn t have explained it better. I already have many instances in my Tree where a place has moved Counties due to a change in
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 8, 2009
        Absolutely Stewart, I couldn't have explained it better. I already have many instances in my Tree where a place has moved Counties due to a change in Boundaries. In at least one instance it changed 3 times (Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire) in the course of less than 100 years.

        Kind Regards

        James Pitt
        Lyndhurst Road
        Amesbury
        Wiltshire
        SP4 7PG (33)
        Tel: 01980 590876
        Mbl: 07881 684839
        Email: jim.pitt47@...


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Stewart Milar
        To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 7:51 PM
        Subject: [AQ_NFS] Standardised Place Names


        Gaylon,

        I would venture to possibly disagree with your explanation of entered
        (original) place names and standardised place names.

        nFS has been deliberately set up to allow the place names to be entered as
        we wish to see them - which allows one to follow the genealogical standard
        of using a place name to match the particular time period. The chosen,
        preferred (original) place name may or may not match with a standardised
        place name - nFS advice is that it does not have to.

        The displayed place name on nFS screens is the entered (original) place name
        for any particular event. Using the "Details" screen, hovering the cursor
        over the place name will display any matching standardised place name - if
        the entered place name was matched with a standardised place name on entry.

        I advice my students to not to be at all worried or concerned what the
        standardised place name is, but to carefully enter the place name as you
        wish to see it (using best genealogical practice) - and in most cases it is
        likely to match with a standardised location - but don't worry if it does
        not; nFS feedback have said they are interested in learning of place names
        that do not match with standardised place names.

        Sometimes nFS will give you a choice of standardised place names - where the
        entered (original) place name is superimposed in a lighter, smaller text
        matched with a number of standardised place names in the drop down box of
        standardised place names.

        The standardised place names I believe serve two purposes - (1) relates the
        location to a modern political map and (2) facilitates matching on searches.

        We have some very particular difficulties with nFS standardised place names
        in the British Isles that are detrimental to using the standardised place
        names as the "original" entered place name - in particular, due to its
        mapping with the current political structure resulting in the use of
        "United Kingdom" (that is - "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
        Ireland") as the final country designation for all time periods - including
        when the UK did not exist; and secondly, that many place locations in the UK
        are doubly defined in the standardised place name list due to many of the
        historic counties having been divided into a new tier of local government
        called "Unitary Authorities" resulting in many towns and villages having a
        standardised entry under the historic county and also under the Unitary
        Authority - and as UA's have changed they could be under multiple UA
        designations as well. But - as I said above, it really is of no consequence
        what form the standardised place name takes - it could just as easily be a
        GPS reference - what is important is what you believe it should be from the
        records you are working from - and it could so easily change in the future -
        in the UK, Scotland is always on the political verge of voting to leave the
        "United Kingdom".

        In conclusion - there are very good reasons for nFS storing two place name
        locations for each event and we should use them as they are best suited to
        the circumstances and not assume that "standardised" is best.

        Regards,

        Stewart Millar

        From: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
        Gaylon Findlay
        Sent: 08 April 2009 17:33
        To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] sysncing problem with large amounts of data

        George, Scott:

        In most cases like this, nFS has associated the various place names with
        a standardized name. If you look at the record on the FamilySearch
        screens, you won't see these variations. AQ purposely chooses to give
        you the complete list. (We're thinking of someday giving you an option
        to show just one value, like FamilySearch does.)

        For example, if you have the following places in FamilySearch (taken
        from an actual record):

        Minden, ON, Canada
        Minden, Ontario, Canada
        Minden, ON
        Canada, Minden, Ontario, Ontario

        All 4 of these match up to the standardized name of "Minden, Ontario,
        Canada". In AQ, you will see all 4 of these. In FamilySearch, you will
        only see one, as they all resolve to a common standardized place. So
        which one will you see in FamilySearch? Apparently the longest. So
        FamilySearch shows you this:

        Canada, Minden, Ontario, Ontario

        You won't have any idea from the FamilySearch screens that the other 3
        variations exits. Sometimes we wonder whether we should have AQ show a
        single value, as is done in FamilySearch, or show them all. But without
        a lot of artificial intelligence, AQ too often would show you what would
        seem like the wrong place name, which doesn't seem helpful.

        I hope this helps you understand why you are looking at such a long list
        of places :-)

        Gaylon

        George Wright wrote:
        > I've observed the same thing. Your suggestion would shorten the number of
        lines in the places list for that event for that person. But it would not
        reduce the number of nFs entries for that person. In other words, if 85
        people had performed ordnances already, it would still read 85.
        >
        > By the way. This duplication is presently a function of New Family Search,
        not Ancestral Quest.
        >
        > George E. Wright
        > Encinitas, California
        >
        > --- On Tue, 4/7/09, Scott Scheibe <dsscheibe@...
        <mailto:dsscheibe%40earthlink.net> > wrote:
        >
        > From: Scott Scheibe <dsscheibe@...
        <mailto:dsscheibe%40earthlink.net> >
        > Subject: [AQ_NFS] sysncing problem with large amounts of data
        > To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AQ_NFS%40yahoogroups.com>
        > Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 9:12 PM
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > It has been rattling around in my head the last few days the NFS
        > could solve a lot of the duplicate data by standardizing location names.
        >
        > Say I've got one ancestor and dozens of people had submitted him
        > with various combinations of birth dates and places. Not much could be
        > done about 12 Feb 1780 v abt 1780, ect.
        >
        > But a lot of them all have 12 Feb 1780 but have some variation of
        > Sugar Run, Lee, Virginia
        >
        > Sugar,LEE,VI,
        > Sugar Run, Virginia
        > Sugar Run, Lee,VI ect..
        >
        > If they were all the same location it could be standardized as one
        location
        > name instead of showing each variation of the same name. I've seen dozens
        > of places were it was the same place but was abbreviated, had the
        > county/didn' t have, various abbreviations of the state, county and town
        > name, some have USA, and so on and on creating large amounts of useless
        > unnecessary data for every event..
        >
        > Scott Scheibe
        > dsscheibe@earthlink .net
        > <http://scottsworld. info/gene. htm>
        >
        > Descendants of Capt. Henry WOODWARD
        > <http://woodward. scottsworld. info/>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.