[APG Public List] [APG Members] place names

[linda at fpr.com]

I don't remember the exact wording of the original question that started
this thread, but it ran along the lines of asking the "best" way to
record or "give" a place name, the-name-at-the-time-of-the-event vs
current usage.   The GPS discussion does not address this original
question, as far as I can tell.

I do agree that GPS descriptors are useful, etc.   But unless someone is
suggesting that GPS replace textual geo-political place names, the
original question is not being addressed.   

Linda
____________
Linda Gardner
Massachusetts

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [APG Public List] [APG Members]   place names
> From: "LBoswell" <laboswell at rogers.com>
> Date: Wed, October 27, 2010 11:58 am
> To: "Janice Sellers" <janicemsj at gmail.com>, "apgpubliclist Posting"
> <apgpubliclist at apgen.org>, <apgmembersonlylist at apgen.org>
> 
> 
> I don't understand any of the objections.  The coordinates are similar to 
> using a place name alone, except that when used in conjunction with a place 
> name they offer the added option of making it easier to get to the general 
> location.  They aren't going to explain boundary changes etc any more than 
> the place name did!
> 
> Yet even if covering an approximate/general area they can be plugged into 
> other programs, mapping options, and much more in ways that historical or 
> modern place names can't.  And as was pointed out they offer a way of 
> differentiating between similarly named locations
> 
> They're an "add-on" to everything you would normally do.  But a powerful 
> "add-on" if employed in a reasonable, intelligent manner.
> 
> I think they should be added whenever possible.
> 
> Larry
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Janice Sellers
>   To: apgpubliclist Posting ; apgmembersonlylist at apgen.org
>   Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 11:44 AM
>   Subject: Re: [APG Members] [APG Public List] place names
> 
> 
>   I think "boundary definitions + effective time period" is an important
>   component of the GPS concept being discussed.  Many, possibly most,
>   places do not have the same boundaries over time.  As an example,
>   small communities are often annexed by large ones.  So, for instance,
>   I live in Oakland, California.  If I were to include a general
>   boundary GPS listing for Oakland as it is now, it would be much larger
>   than Oakland was in the mid-1870's, when the section of the city in
>   which I live was annexed.
> 
>   Janice M. Sellers
> 
>   On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 7:17 AM,  <linda at fpr.com> wrote:
>   > I'm not sure I see how use of GPS coordinates has much impact on the
>   > discussion of current vs historical place names. GPS descriptors are
>   > an additional place qualification, and IMO they are very useful. Names
>   > and their associated boundary definitions + effective time period and
>   > the correspondence between then and now... all that is still important
>   > as they have been.