Re: Mapping Facility in FH


David Potter
 

Um, Okay Mike very Interesting.

As the Map Geocoding is still not operational just now I can’t test this. But if what you are saying is by way of this example:

I have say Cardiff, Glamorgan, Wales in the Place field, and Canterbury, Kent, England in the Standardized Place field. And no Geocoding already exists (that field is Blank). If I click on the Cardiff in the List Pane and choose Locate in Map it would find Canterbury is that right?

 

Kind Regards

 

David Charles Potter

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Tate
Sent: 09 January 2021 22:09
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Mapping Facility in FH

 

David, you are mistaken.

If you use the Standardized field then that IS the place used for plotting in the Map Window.

That is its sole purpose.

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of David Potter via groups.io
Sent: 09 January 2021 21:00
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Mapping Facility in FH

 

Evening All.

I have been reading the posts re Mapping in FH and Place Names in general with great interest. But I'm finding there is a clear tradeoff between keeping True to the Source and determining where on a Map (if it is resonably obvious) the Place is and should be marked so in FH.
If I take the UK Wales and England Census records, quite often the Places recorded in the Where Born column are best guesses by the Enumerator; and quite often even the Head of the Household is unclear about where born information. A good number are accurate references but many are not.

My method is to try to establish the most reasonabe determination on where the Place might be and mark it so in the FH Mapping feature along with the Geocode values. The reason for this is if I were to enter each place Verbatim as recorded in the Census record, I would have a mess of Place records with no clear logic behind the true (at least reasonable) location. So it is a compromise for me. Of course having resolved where I believe the place should be mapped I could go back and rehash the Place details as entered in the Source record itself, much helped with FH7 and Templated Source records and Rich Text support. But that is a lot of additional work and to what gain other that to be 100% True to the Source.

I still find the need to enter simplified Place data such as ,, Herefordshire,, England if that is all I have to go on, but it then becomes a common Place value used wherever that same need arises. I tend to choose the City within the County deemed to be the 'Capital' as a Map marker.

I appreciate one could use the Standardized Place Field to help this along but that is not the value used when you click on a Place in the Map Window and select Locate in Map. I'm always looking to apply best practice - but with Places it is often a compromise with what you wish to achieve:

Be absolutely aligned with being True to the Source, or
Have a more manageable/practical Place database.

Thoughts/Comments always welcome.

David

Join family-historian@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.