[APG Public List] [APG Members] place names
linda at fpr.com
linda at fpr.com
Wed Oct 27 17:03:40 MDT 2010
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.
> -------- 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.
> ----- 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.
More information about the APGPublicList