Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

Integrate Place Name database with Family Tree

The place name database is available, but must be searched separately from FamilyTree. I propose integration of the two.

First, I want to validate the FT standardized place names in context. The place name database record contains the date range in which the place existed. If the FT user enters an event date outside of the range for the standardized place name, a warning should display.

Second, I want to view the place name record from within FT. Upon request of the user, display a simplified version of the place name record that gives enough information to identify (and perhaps resolve) the issue. Provide a link to display the entire record.
2 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
  • "First, I want to validate the FT standardized place names in context."
    Agreed - they should be compatible with the date.

    "The place name database record contains the date range in which the place existed."
    Good theory. Step outside basic USA/UK data and I've found lots of examples where it doesn't and has multiple names existing at the same time.

    "If the FT user enters an event date outside of the range for the standardized place name, a warning should display."
    I'd do it the other way round. Use the date of the event as a filter on the standardised place-names that can be chosen. Although there needs to be a warning triggered if the event date is altered after choosing the standardised place-name and the two no longer match - it's rather like the "No standardised ..." message, I suggest.

    It's arguable though, that what's more important is to convert the FS FT database to store, not the text of place-names against events, but the numeric reference so that, when linked with the date, one could automatically use as the standard name "Nantwich, Cheshire, England" now and, if the location database changes, change the visible standard name for events held against people to "Nantwich, Cheshire, England, Great Britain" for 1707-1801 dates.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • The genealogical standard has always been to use the place name as it existed at the time of the event. I understand this historical practice. I am wondering in the days of GPS and easy latitude-longitude references if this should be phased out with GPS coordinates. This is a huge change, and well above my purview, but makes sense with current technology.

    PS:
    Yes, I know this is HERESY.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • It's not so much heresy as impractical. What GPS coordinates would you use for New York City? And would you be able to differentiate those from the GPS for Manhattan, say? Not sure about NYC but any arbitrary centre of gravity (to coin a phrase) GPS for London would certainly shift over the years.

    While it's tempting to ask why you need the name, wouldn't a pin on a map suffice? it''s actually tricky to put a pin on a map to represent England that doesn't look like a pin for whatever village is the geographic centre of England. Our human brain brings a lot of understanding of how fuzzy a concept like England is as a place, while such fuzziness is hard to display on a map, never mind quantify.

    None of which should be taken to imply that GPS coordinates aren't useful...
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • One of the main reason for a "named" place is to facilitate the searching for appropriate records.

    It seems that GPS or Lat/Long could be programmed to reflect the respective recording entity through various periods of time. Of course, many jurisdictions might provide records for any given locations. It would be quite a data base, that could, theoretically, solve many record searching and reporting inconsistencies.

    Here's a site that converts Lat/Long to an address (current) and vice versa: https://www.findlatitudeandlongitude....
    :
    Selected Location (output)*
    Address:1603 Culpepper Cir, Charleston, SC 29407, USA
    Latitude:32.811567°
    Longitude:-79.992218°
    • Interesting - using the example co-ords that Tom gave for London above in this site, the place returned is an exact address of 5 Savoy Hill, London WC2R 0BU, UK.

      This illustrates my concern - how, from a simple pair of co-ords, do we tell the difference between the metropolis of London and 5 Savoy Hill, London? All very useful in many circumstances but just restricting to the co-ords loses data about the area being referenced.

      Again, don't get me wrong, I love maps, "A picture is worth a thousand words", etc, but we need more than just the simple co-ords of the "centre" of the area.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited