I understand the historical part, but some of us prefer to use the NOTE field to explain when there are differences in jurisdictions or what a location was called. Afterall, as someone said recently, the latitude and longitude does not change and we like to use the mapping system and tie a particular location into every person referenced for that spot on the map. So, even though I generally always like to include the COUNTY -- in your example, I would not put the county in the location. I would leave the COUNTY place marker empty between commas, as follows:
Woodstock, , Connecticut, USA and have the appropriate note attached to that location to explain when it was a part of Windham County and when it was a part of Suffolk County. That is just a personal preference to keep from having hundreds or quite literally even thousands of extra locations in the database (ex: Upper Canada, Canada West, British America, Massachusetts Bay Colony - you could go on and on and create even thousands of extra places, if you take that to the extreme). So, I'm not saying you are wrong in listing such locations separately, just my reason for doing otherwise. Jerry Boor / http://www.MerriamFamilyTree.org On 11/16/2011 07:39 PM, Geoff Rasmussen wrote: > Hey Tony, > > I wish people would disagree with me more often - we all can learn from each > other. > > However, understanding the location at the time of the event is crucial to > research success. Woodstock, Connecticut has always had the same > latitude/longitude. Today it resides in Windham County. If you look for > records in Woodstock, Windham County for an ancestor that lived in Woodstock > in 1720, you won't find what you are looking for because at that time it > resided in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. If I were to record the person's > birth as 1720 in Woodstock, Windham County, Connecticut, it would be false - > the place simply did not exist then. My recommendation then is to record the > location as it existed at the time of the event AND in the event's notes, > record the name of the place as it exists today to cross-reference each other. > > Good luck, > > Geoff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Rolfe [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 5:10 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [LegacyUG] Locations > > Paula wants me to change the thread title, so here goes. > > Hi, Geoff > > I have to disagree with your statement that "it's the location at the time of > the event that is important not the location as it is [or isn't] now." > > Surely the whole point is that these two locations are the same location. > The names may have changed, the old location may now be in the middle of a > motorway, under a reservoir or have fallen off a crumbling cliff into the > ocean. However, where it was is where it is. > The latitude and longitude are still there. > > Researching people is also about researching locations. Where they lived is > important. Where they lived often determined how they lived. > Sometimes reaearching the locations highlights problems. I have a grand > uncle and his wife who moved to Canada. His granddaughter contacted me and > told me that he told he that "he married his childhood sweetheart". > Fine, until you include location details. She was born and lived about 25 > miles South of the wide part of the Thames Estuary. He was born and lived > about the same distance North. There is no obvious way from one place to the > other in a time when travel wan't as easy as it is today. > > My research shows that they didn't meet until they both moved to a third > location. So what is wrong? Something doesn't add up. Is the childhood > sweetheart just a family story? Do I have the wrong wife? > The wrong grand uncle? Did they both travel to the coast and meet on holiday? > Without knowing the locations, I wouldn't know there was an issue. It's on > my to-do list. > > Why do I prefer jpegs over PDF's? Partly because I don't like any of the PDF > readers and I can't afford (or be bothered) to buy a PDF editor. > Partly because I can use photoshop to make poor-quality jpeg images more > readable. Nothing really profound. Just a personal preference. > > Cheers > > Tony > > > 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 > 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 > > > > 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 > 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 > > 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 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
