So, instead of every one of us trying to verify every location in our master location list...wouldn't it be a good idea if we had a known-to-be-correct locations table that might verify a majority of the entries in our individual files? Users like CE Wood could indicate that a location is good or bad and over time those locations with the most good votes should rise to the top and the ones with the most bad votes should drop. The ones left in the middle will need some serious arbitration. Zero votes means nobody is working on that location.
Later, add the castles, churches, hospitals, cemeteries, etc. Ron Taylor On Thursday, July 31, 2014 8:53 PM, CE WOOD <[email protected]> wrote: I never use just one mapping source. With Google, one has the ability to move the arrow if it, for instance, is not precisely on the right spot, and give you the coordinates of the spot to which you moved the cursor. Bing, in Legacy, will do that too, but gives the coordinates in degrees, minutes, seconds. Unfortunately, the Legacy converter is not always accurate. Bing maps itself will not allow you to move the cursor and get the coordinates for the new pinpoint. Microsoft has told me they don't know why the difference between Legacy Bing maps and internet Bing maps. Check, check, recheck. Many sites, such as Find A Grave, require decimal coordinates, and the Legacy converter does not always convert correctly. I have double checked the Legacy converted decimal coordinates, and often found they did not put the cursor correctly. You can always overwrite whatever coordinates you already have found (the Legacy converter seems to be precise going from decimal to degrees, just not the other way, but be sure to save the original Legacy coordinates somewhere until you like how the map looks. Bottom line: if you really want the exact coordinates, you must double, triple, and sometimes quadruple check. When I view the map of a church, castle, etc., I want to see the church, castle, etc. or its ruins. For a town, I am more sanguine. CE > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Geo_code places How to review large numbers for > correct placement > Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:32:43 -0400 > > A few questions as I ponder the options ... > > 1. If a tool could flag a certain variance from Google, would that help? > 2. Why should Google be the standard, assumed correct? > 3. How about a tool that got the Google value and over writes the Legacy > value, or gives a choice to choose between them? > > Bob Hansen > > On Jul 31, 2014, at 19:22, Jay 1FamilyTree <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Anyone have any workable solutions? 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
