Jerry, I do not use SQL to adjust location details for my website, what you see is what you get out of the Legacy box. However I am always happy to help with websites either on or of list - the latter only being for the use of Legacy in website creation, of course. You may not be aware that we have a forum in Yahoo Groups for assisting with the development of all aspects of websites it is Web Users Legacy at: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/WUL/
Ron Ferguson http://www.fergys.co.uk/ -----Original Message----- From: Jerry Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 10:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Entering Locations/Places Hi Ron. Believe me, I wish we had the metric system too. You won't get an argument with me on that! I went to your site and saw that your place names are well designed. However, in your United States' sites, I only see one single instance in which you showed the county in which a city is located. But the bigger point is this: Most Legacy users will not have the expertise with SQL and various programming techniques to sort out their place names and display them, as you have done, on your website. So, most of us - at least for now, will have to use the standard practices, "out of the box," that were already designed by Legacy and the other genealogy software providers. But, if it's ok, I might want to contact you off-line to get some pointers from you as we further develop our website. Yours looks very good. --Thanks, Jerry On 11/18/2010 11:24 AM, Ron Ferguson wrote: > Jerry, > > I will not suggest how they can be made to fit a convention devised for > American locations. Our locations do not fit the four field convention and > when so made to do then the data contained in therein is incorrect. Except > in America there is no such thing as a "standard" four divisions. > > You statement: " > However, I think the genealogy software and recommendations have > to go with the LEAST COMMON DENOMINATOR, the same thing we learned in > math class." > > in my view, is in no way applicable (and btw. as somebody who read some > maths at university I rather suspect it is not entirely applicable in > maths > either). What you are suggesting is more like saying Europe should abandon > the metric system because America uses feet and inches, No way!! > > Ron Ferguson > http://www.fergys.co.uk/ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 8:58 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Entering Locations/Places > > Hi Ron, Mike, etal. I understand your position being against the > standard four divisions in the place names, since they don't fit the > UK. However, I think the genealogy software and recommendations have > to go with the LEAST COMMON DENOMINATOR, the same thing we learned in > math class. Most indexes in the genealogy databases will not sort > properly without standardization. > > If a person wants to use the "standard" four divisions with their > locations, how would you suggest they enter an ENGLISH location within > those four divisions? Thanks, --Jerry in Michigan > > On 11/18/2010 4:34 AM, Mike Fry wrote: >> On 2010/11/18 06:29, Chris Clifford wrote: >> >>> I am a new user of Legacy 7. I understand the importance of entering >>> locations consistently; however, the instructions are for town, county, >>> state, country. The majority of my ancestors are from England and a few >>> from >>> Canada. How do I enter these locations, i.e., Lincoln, Lincolnshire, >>> England? If so, isn't there a field missing as Lincolnshire is the >>> county, >>> but there isn't a state or province. Also, what would be the correct >>> entry >>> for Canadian locations; can anyone give me an example? >> First of all - Ignore any recommendations in the documentation! And pay >> close >> attention to Ron Ferguson :-) >> >> This is all written from a USA point of view and the structure oft-quoted >> doesn't really apply to the UK way of doing things - and the rest of the >> world >> to be strictly accurate. Also, the 4-part location doesn't always fit >> with >> the >> historic way in which places were named. So, unless you're dead-set on >> using the >> Geo-Database - which only knows about modern names anyway - you are best >> to >> forget the 4-part thing. >> >> Having said that, I would still advocate the need for consistency to >> avoid >> unnecessary duplication of locations. I find with UK locations that there >> is a >> need sometimes to distinguish between actual places and general areas. >> For >> example, parishes that are usually known by the main church in that >> parish, and >> the civil registration districts. Add the occasional need for Hundreds, >> 'real' >> Counties and Poor-Law districts to be thrown into the mix, and it soon >> becomes >> obvious that the "One Size Fits All" approach of the Geo-Database and the >> 4-part >> USA location name, isn't applicable to the UK. >> >> I set my Registration Districts up according to a 3-part formula >> >> e.g. "RD: Walsingham, Norfolk, England" where RD is part of the name in >> order to >> distinguish between this area and the village of the same name. The >> short-form >> can simply be set to "Walsingham (RD)", with no need for the County or >> Country. >> >> Parishes, I simply name according to a 4-part format of >> >> <Church Name>,<Parish>,<County>,<Country> >> >> Oh yes! Apply the right-to-left sort as well. >> > 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
