Re: Mapping Facility in FH

Adrian Bruce

On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 at 21:00, David Potter via
<David.potter5@...> wrote:
Be absolutely aligned with being True to the Source, or
Have a more manageable/practical Place database.

Thoughts/Comments always welcome.

My view about being "True to the Source" is that this applies
precisely and only to the Source-Record and to any quotes from it
(e.g. "Text from Source" etc.). The place-names held against facts
such as Birth or Residence are **conclusions** and are therefore free
to differ from the text in the Source. If there is a difference then I
**should** be justifying that difference somewhere - usually in the
Yellow-pane Note against that citation but potentially in a longer
note somewhere.

Examples of differences from the Source include:
- the 1851 census seems to have a number of my relatives who entered
their *parish* of birth, rather than the town / village. My 4G-GF
entered his birthplace as "Great Budworth" in the 1851 but "Northwich"
in later censuses. His 1851 Source Record says "Great Budworth" (I
split my census sources down to the household level). The birth fact
says "Northwich", cites the 1851 against that birth fact but records
in the Notes for that citation, something along the lines of "Gt
Budworth is the par for Northwich";

- the contemporary common name of the town and the contemporary
official name differ. One of my ancestral towns is the railway town of
Crewe. The BMD certificates usually refer to an event taking place in
"Monks Coppenhall, Cheshire" and so the Source Record for the Birth
(e.g.) says "Monks Coppenhall". However, I enter "Crewe, Cheshire,
England" for the fact because at the time that they were born, the
physical settlement was the railway town and it *was* known as Crewe.
I probably don't enter that in the citation but I do enter it as a
note against the place record for Crewe - something along the lines of
"Officially Monks Coppenhall for Civil Registration purposes etc.".
The original usage was "Monks Coppenhall" for the south and centre of
where the town was later built, and "Church Coppenhall" for the north.
However the term "Coppenhall" is today used to refer to the **north**
end of Crewe - e.g. "Monks Coppenhall Junior School" is actually in
the former "Church Coppenhall"!

- the original is ambiguous. Look, they knew which St. George's
parish they meant in the Bristol area. But the rest of us? I can
usually work it out - so I will tweak the name in the fact to
distinguish between "St. George, Gloucestershire" and "St. George,
Brandon Hill, Bristol, Gloucestershire". Again, the Source Record
quotes (or images) the exact text in the original and the citation
data should have something useful.

Now, all of those are potential differences between my conclusion and
the source-record. I haven't referred to maps because, in my book, the
maps do NOT influence the choice of name in my conclusion.

When it comes to looking at the maps and the geocoding of the places
from the facts, then, I must emphasise again, I will not alter the
place-names from the facts. What might happen is that the mapping goes
to an odd place. For example, my places in the pre-1901 Australian
colony of Victoria have been mapped to British Columbia.... Note that
my pre-1901 Victoria place names terminate in Victoria, NOT Australia.
I respect the contemporary political arrangement in my Australian
place-names in my facts. What I will do there is to add a Standardized
Place-Name of "XXX, Victoria, Australia" for the place "XXX, Victoria"
in its Place-record.

That Standardized Place-name is where any tweaking / fudging /
simplification / whatever, goes on in my book.

That's what I do... (Just don't ask about London!)


Join to automatically receive all group messages.