Alan, With respect to English locations it is difficult to see which way nFS is going to jump. If anything is clear it is that they have realised that the American 4 field convention is useless, and inaccurate, when recording our locations. I cannot understand why the full address is not given in their records if only because standard practice is to record as much information as possible.
In general, I welcome the additional information which they are now including in their transcriptions, however, they have a long way to go before they can match the quality of the Parish Records which are published by many local Family History Societies, details of which can be found in UKBMD. Ron Ferguson http://www.fergys.co.uk/ -----Original Message----- From: Alan Pereira Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 9:31 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] webinar comment An example of why it should be ignored is a grandfather of mine was born at the address: 30 Little Camden Street, Camden Town, Middlesex, England nFS wants to use: Camden Town, Middlesex, England The real value of where my grandfather was born would be lost. Similarly his christening was at: All Saints, St. Pancras, Camden Town, Middlesex, England nFS offers the Camden Town or St Pancras address in Middlesex, England and loses the name of the Church where the event took place. There is a case for using the generic location as suggested by nFS if the full address was also available to researchers. As yet the web site for general searches on the nFS data is not available so we will not know the answer to that until it becomes so. Another problem is that I am attaching sources to these events which presume the complete address is in place - the source also loses value if the address is compromised. -----Original Message----- From: Kirsten Bowman [mailto:vik...@rvi.net] Sent: 15 June 2011 02:31 To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] webinar comment 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
