[APG Public List] [APG Members] place names
john at jytangledweb.org
Wed Oct 27 21:50:15 MDT 2010
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'. :-)
> 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.
>> ----- 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 Gardner
>> > -------- 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
>> > using a place name alone, except that when used in conjunction with a
>> > name they offer the added option of making it easier to get to the
>> > location. They aren't going to explain boundary changes etc any more
>> > the place name did!
>> > Yet even if covering an approximate/general area they can be plugged
>> > other programs, mapping options, and much more in ways that historical
>> > 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.
>> > > and their associated boundary definitions + effective time period
>> > > the correspondence between then and now... all that is still
>> > > as they have been.
More information about the APGPublicList