There's no question that genealogical practice recommends using the name of the place as it was at the time of the event (and in the language of the place, if you want to go that far). I'm just wondering how that and other location issues that Legacy allows will integrate with FamilySearch's goal to standardize data entry of locations. From an earlier response I gather that the standard can be ignored, but what's the use of a standard that is ignored--or does the standard perhaps somehow take into account the situations mentioned?
Kirsten -----Original Message----- From: David C Abernathy [mailto:da...@schmeckabernathy.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 2:53 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] webinar comment Since the records will reflect original (old) names, that is what I use. If I know that there are new names/locations I will put that information in a note. I do this with many entries, as the cities come and go, Counties, State lines and territories disappear and change. The Countries are not the only thing that changes. Thanks, David C Abernathy Email disclaimers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message represents the official view of the voices in my head. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.SchmeckAbernathy.com == All outgoing and incoming mail is scanned by F-Prot Antivirus == From: Gene Adams [mailto:ca1ski...@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 2:35 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] webinar comment Which brings up another issue. When you get back far enough, which is the better means of identifying locations? The current "modern" standard location as known today, or do you identify the location as it was known at the time of the ancestor. What is the correct identity to be used? You can place the correct lat/long for the location, but about the only modern term that could be added is "Europe or Asia or Africa" for someone unfamiliar with the various iterations over the centuries as political entities graduated from the Roman or Byzantine Empires, through the various feudal states and into the modern era. Which does the new family search routines prefer? Gene A From: Kirsten Bowman <vik...@rvi.net> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:15 AM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] webinar comment I certainly agree with Michele's comments. I also watched the webinars but they raised more questions than answers, especially regarding locations. There seem to be standardized LDS locations. How does that work with, say, Upper Canada or Canada West (now Ontario), or American colonies like Plymouth (later merged with Massachusetts)? Or Acadia when it was part of New France? Does FamilySearch data entry want to see the placeholder commas that some of us dislike? And what about the "At Sea" entries, or "of" with locations? There are surely even more complications with European locations. I think we could almost use a whole webinar on Legacy location fields and synchronizing them with FamilySearch for those who wish to plan ahead. Kirsten Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
