[APG Public List] [APG Members] place names

linda at fpr.com linda at fpr.com
Wed Oct 27 21:20:36 MDT 2010

Stephen was kind enough to share with me privately the original query
for this thread, which was about the need to translate place names from
one language to another. and that question was answered  Somehow I
thought there was a question still on the table regarding the use of
historical vs current place names.   I don't know why I had that
impression, perhaps someone later brought it up, or perhaps it's
leftover from another thread.  

I do think the GPS discussion is valuable, informative and worthwhile.  
My concern was solely for a question that I thought wasn't being
addressed and couldn't see how using GPS descriptors was relevant to
that question.   I'm not at home, haven't much online time and right now
it's difficult for me to reconstruct how I came to think that that
question was part of this thread.  

My apologies to the list for getting off-track!  :-)

Monday I had a team of physically capably family members searching for
my 3g-grandmother's grave.  I had determined the cemetery, section, and
with the help of the grounds manager had an anchor point relatively
close to where her burial record says she's buried (3 rows and 4 graves
over).   Of course no marker was obvious, even with some exploration of
indentations that might have been fallen stones covered by grass.   So,
for now Grandma Nancy's burial location is specified with a supposed
accuracy of a 10'x10' area.  Hardly as satisfying as having a photo of a
marker, or a specific GPS location, but galaxies ahead of what I knew
before 8am Monday morning when the identity of the cemetery wasn't

Linda Gardner

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [APG Public List] [APG Members] place names
> From: "LBoswell" <laboswell at rogers.com>
> Date: Wed, October 27, 2010 8:56 pm
> To: <linda at fpr.com>
> Cc: "Janice Sellers" <janicemsj at gmail.com>,  "apgpubliclist Posting"
> <apgpubliclist at apgen.org>
> 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.

More information about the APGPublicList mailing list