[APG Public List] [APG Members] place names

[John]

On 10/27/2010 11:20 PM, linda at fpr.com wrote:
> 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

I don't mean to harp on this, but it is important to remember, current
GPS devices (that I own, anyway) only have an accuracy of +/-15 feet,
at best. That isn't quite as accurate as your 10'x10'. :-)

John

> before 8am Monday morning when the identity of the cemetery wasn't
> certain.
>
> 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 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.
>