[APG Public List] [APG Members] place names

[LBoswell]

Actually I thought I was suggesting using longitude/latitude coordinates as 
a way to avoid the argument as to whether historical or more contemporary 
names were used by coding all name changes to the same coordinates, where 
possible..  When I changed the subject to place names (or soon after it 
changed to place names).  Could you be thinking of the thread that 
subsequently changed to this one?

So I don't think this thread evolved and went off on a tangent, but so what 
if it did?  Some interesting discussions come up when the subject is altered 
along the way.

But as far as I remember it's been linked to coordinates since it changed to 
"place names" (and I'm sure I changed the subject line, but certainly 
someone will check the archives and set me square on that if I'm mistaken)

But it matters not to me.  I've personally learned a lot from the discussion 
about coordinates that I didn't know before.  I've some idea of some 
pitfalls and limitations from their use too, but I remain convinced it's 
simply a practical idea to make use of them where possible (and where 
practical).  I'd like to see their use increase, and see some guidelines for 
that use.

Larry



----- Original Message ----- 
  From: linda at fpr.com
  To: LBoswell
  Cc: Janice Sellers ; apgpubliclist Posting
  Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 7:03 PM
  Subject: RE: [APG Public List] [APG Members] place names


  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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20101027/c5f4b3ab/attachment.htm>