On 03/06/2013 17:35, Phil C. wrote: > On 03/06/2013 13:23, Jon Green wrote: >> Like many others here (by the look of it), I note precisely what the >> original reference says - but then I add annotations in the record to >> clarify if, for example, the same place is called by markedly differing >> names, so that I don't get misled into thinking they're two separate >> places. > > I too agree. Apart from anything else, we can have no idea what > name/boundary/authority changes may come in the future. A /very/ good point. Sometimes it's easy to get so immersed in the past that we forget the future that will inherit our labours! Jon -- WATCH OUT FOR THE SPAM BLOCK! Replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines' to reply in email!

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:47:41 +0100, Jon Green <jonsg@deadspam.com> wrote: >On 03/06/2013 17:35, Phil C. wrote: >> On 03/06/2013 13:23, Jon Green wrote: >>> Like many others here (by the look of it), I note precisely what the >>> original reference says - but then I add annotations in the record to >>> clarify if, for example, the same place is called by markedly differing >>> names, so that I don't get misled into thinking they're two separate >>> places. >> >> I too agree. Apart from anything else, we can have no idea what >> name/boundary/authority changes may come in the future. > >A /very/ good point. Sometimes it's easy to get so immersed in the past >that we forget the future that will inherit our labours! And one that shows up the danger of trying to standardise location names (as Ancestry.com appears to do). Great for GPS, perhaps, but imagine if they'd done it 20 years ago, and listed all the people born in Clifton and Bedminster, back to AD 900, as born in "Avon". -- Steve Hayes Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/ http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/