3. or if you're married to someone born there ;-) Evert 2010/8/2 Brian L. Lightfoot <[email protected]>: > As I've read all the replies on this thread, I am thoroughly convinced of > three things. > > 1. The political subdivisions of the United States are nowhere near uniform. > Each state does as it pleases (which is what our Constitution stipulates). > 2. Address location anywhere in the UK is only understood by someone born > there. > 3. The state of New York has the most confusing addressing system anywhere > in the world. > 4. I never understood math. > > > Brian in CA > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott Hall [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 8:19 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Legacy and County Names >> >> Brian: >> >> This is an excellent system I think I'll adopt. I notice Slawson's >> "Getting it Right" is silent on this point, but provides examples that >> use descriptors such as "City" or "County", especially when the city / >> town and county share the same name. I adopted the "four comma" >> approach when I switched to Legacy, principally because I got better >> verification from the GeoDB. I'm now of the opinion that the GeoDB be >> damned, adding "County" or "Township" helps avoid ambiguity. >> >> I think the four comma approach is still a good alternative, but the >> "straw" that pushes me to modify it to an approach similar to yours is >> that I find it too common that the "city" is not often known, and in >> many cases may be the town or township. >> >> For example, a record for one of my ancestors may indicate an event >> that took place in Muncy, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. Is that >> Muncy Borough or Muncy Township? How would you record it if you did >> not know? >> >> The trick in getting this right is knowing each state's govermental >> entity hierarchy. Having grown up in New York State, I am used to the >> Village inside a Town inside a County system. For example, I grew up >> just outside of Shortsville, a small incorporated village in the town >> of Manchester, which is located in Ontario County. Despite having a >> Shortsville mailing address and attedning the Manchester-Shortsville >> school system, I actually lived inside the neighboring town of >> Hopewell, within no incorporated village. So, if one were listing >> where I spend my childhood, it would be: >> >> Town of Hopewell, Ontario County, New York, USA >> >> While I could just say "Hopewell" and leave off town, it would become >> ambigous if I were referring to Manchester, the neighboring town where >> I went to school, as the Town of Manchester has within it a village >> also named Manchester. So, like the Muncy example, clarity come from >> listing like this: >> >> Village of Manchester (or just Manchester), Town of Manchester, >> Ontario County, New York, USA >> >> But here is the $64,000 question.... the "four comma" approach says >> city OR town, county, state, country. Is it then overkill to >> consistently use a five comma approach? A month ago I might of said >> yes, but now I say no. >> >> What do you think? >> >> In Massachusetts, where I live now, the system is similar, except >> there are no incorporated villages or any incorporated government >> below the town level. There are plenty of unincorporated villages and >> places, but the lowest level of government is the town. As with New >> York, towns are within counties, although some Massachusetts counties >> have been disbanded and exist only for historical geographic purposes >> (such as Hampden County). I currently live within the Town of >> Grafton, located in Worcester County. Thus the listing could be: >> >> Grafton, Worcester County, Massachusetts, USA >> >> Beacuse there is nothing lower than Grafton, it is probably not >> necessary to say "Town of Grafton". >> >> But now we have state-by-state variation, and that could get >> confusing. While Massachusetts is similar to Pennsylvania in that the >> town (MA) or township / borough (PA) is the lowest form of government, >> its different from that of NY, where villages are smaller that towns. >> So, although obvious, perhaps its better to say: >> >> Town of Grafton, Worcester County, Massachusetts, USA >> >> which would align the method with that of New York. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> Scott >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Brian L. Lightfoot >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I'm glad to see that I'm in line with the general consensus here, >> namely to include the work "County" after the name of the county. I've >> observed that this practice has evolved somewhat over the past decade. >> Seems originally somebody thought the nice, clean method of "City, >> County, State, (optional Country)" was the prescribed method. But I >> immediately saw a problem in that many cities, townships, and counties >> all have the same name. For example, the city of Mudville, in Mudville >> Township, in Mudville County. When you run across some source that left >> out the critical location word and only provided "Mudville, State" or >> "Mudville, Mudville, State" (as in Ancestry's 1880 census reports), >> then are they talking the city of Mudville or the township of Mudville. >> (Note to people across the pond either in the UK or the land down under >> --- a township is not the same as a town. It is normally just a >> geographic part of a County which is divided up into several >> townships.) >> > >> > The bottom line is that I enter my data in the following fashion. If >> it's the city of Mudville, then I write "Mudville, Mudville County, >> State". If it is the township of Mudville (which is not necessarily the >> same as the city limits), then I write "Mudville Township, Mudville >> County, State". The location description may look long but at least I >> know specifically what area is being described. >> > >> > I've gotten lazy and leave out the "USA" part. Figure I don't know of >> anybody in the EU that I'll be sending my family file to. >> > >> > >> > Brian in CA >> > >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Kathy Meyer [mailto:[email protected]] >> > > Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 11:47 AM >> > > To: [email protected] >> > > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Legacy and County Names >> > > >> > > I was told at one time that you should always use the word "county" >> > > following the actual county name anytime you did not have a city to >> > > precede it; otherwise, as you stated, one would assume that it was >> the >> > > city name, even if you had the leading commas to separate fields. >> It >> > > was at some sort of conference or class and they said it was >> helpful >> > > to do that as a habit anyway, just to be very clear. I have not >> done >> > > that in the past and have not changed my database to reflect that >> but >> > > I thought it made very good sense. Wouldn't it be nice to simply >> have >> > > fields that are specifically for city or town, parish, county, >> state, >> > > country? Then those inadvertent errors would diminish; a lot of >> > > people don't even know to put in the commas to designate a missing >> > > field. >> > > >> > > Kathy >> > > >> > > On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Alan Jones <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > > The previous genealogy program I used had you put "Co." after >> the >> > > > county name so you had place location of >> > > > Little Rock, Pulaski Co., Arkansas, USA >> > > > >> > > > However in the Legacy training and the Geo Database it does not >> use >> > > or >> > > > seam to like the "Co." on the end. Thus output was: Little >> Rock, >> > > > Pulaski, Arkansas, USA >> > > > >> > > > When I moved to Legacy I pulled "Co." off of everything as I >> found it >> > > > trying to follow the convention. Now in some of my reports and >> other >> > > > things I look back and think it might have been nice to have had >> the >> > > Co. >> > > > for the County. >> > > > >> > > > So my questions are: >> > > > >> > > > What is the reasoning Legacy does not put them on? >> > > > >> > > > Are there reasons not to have the Co. on the end? >> > > > >> > > > I did note in some reading that if you just have the county name >> then >> > > > your are supposed to put "Co." or something on the end so people >> > > don't >> > > > get confused and think it was a City. So why not allow it all >> the >> > > time. >> > > > >> > > > Anyone else just force it on? It means you can't use the default >> > > lookup >> > > > in the Geo Database. It certainly would be something easy to fix >> and >> > > > add as a feature to Legacy to have it put Co. on county names on >> if >> > > it >> > > > did not cause problems. >> > > > >> > > > Is there a research/genealogical reason not to do this? >> > > > >> > > > Anyone else ever run into this question? >> > > > >> > > > thoughts? >> > > > >> > > > thanks >> > > > >> > > > Alan >> > > > >> > > > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > > Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > > To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > > >
Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
