How do others deal with this, you might start off with a place that is in Essex at time of birth, but by the time a person dies same place is now called Greater London, or South eastern Essex or what ever do you stay with same place name or change with the passing time, I guess change with time is more correct, -- Cheers Jenny I DON"T do mornings!!!! Photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/jen_in_brisbane/ Family Tree http://minerstree.tribalpages.com/

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 15:41:32 +1000, "Kiwi in Aus" <Wwftw_98@Yahoo.com> wrote: >How do others deal with this, you might start off with a place that is in >Essex at time of birth, but by the time a person dies same place is now >called Greater London, or South eastern Essex or what ever do you stay with >same place name or change with the passing time, I guess change with time is >more correct, At the tree-building stage I make a pretty conscientious attempt to include, in my "published" work, notes on variant names of persons, localities, countries, sources, et. al., as a small contribution to making the next searcher's task easier. The form I choose for the master copy I generally base on how the individual styled himself/herself, or official documents if any. -- Don donsgenes@charter.net

Kiwi in Aus <Wwftw_98@Yahoo.com> wrote: > How do others deal with this, you might start off with a place that is in > Essex at time of birth, but by the time a person dies same place is now > called Greater London, or South eastern Essex or what ever do you stay with > same place name or change with the passing time, I guess change with time is > more correct, It's a personal matter, but I try on the whole to record the place name as it was at the time of the event in question - such that a person might be christened in Sheffield parish church but married in Sheffield cathedral - same building. John. -- Please reply to john at yclept dot wanadoo dot co dot uk.

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 15:41:32 +1000, "Kiwi in Aus" <Wwftw_98@Yahoo.com> wrote: >How do others deal with this, you might start off with a place that is in >Essex at time of birth, but by the time a person dies same place is now >called Greater London, or South eastern Essex or what ever do you stay with >same place name or change with the passing time, I guess change with time is >more correct, I try, where possible, to use the name of the place when the event took place, but it isn't always possible to determine that precisely, so I'm not consistent about it. -- Steve Hayes Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/ http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/

Kiwi in Aus wrote: > How do others deal with this, you might start off with a place that is > in Essex at time of birth, but by the time a person dies same place is > now called Greater London, or South eastern Essex or what ever do you > stay with same place name or change with the passing time, I guess > change with time is more correct, > Any particular place falls into a number of different hierarchies which can change over time. Ideally genealogical S/W developers would recognise this and make provision for sufficiently flexible descriptions so that one could define both the place and the hierarchies (with the dates for which they were valid) separately and then link the two. You would then be able to define separate hierarchies for Essex, Greater London, and SE Essex including their registration districts, etc, and the dates for which they were valid. Your place would then link into each of them and the S/W would be able to pick out the relevant hierarchy for a given event based on the date. You would also be able to define parallel hierarchies for parish and bishopric although this would be quite complex when a single building serves as a chapel of ease for more than one parish. In practice what I've done using Gramps is as follows: County changes are not a real problem. The only change hereabouts was in 1974 and only 4 events fall into the new county. In terms of parish records most events fall into two ancient parishes which were progressively broken up in the C19th. Prior to this marriages were almost exclusively in the ancient PCs so I have simple entries for these in Gramps' Places table. However a great many baptisms and, after the mid C18th, burials took place in a chapel of ease which served both parishes. I've put two entries for the chapel into the database, one for each parish, and select whichever was appropriate for a given event. I don't have any events for the building after it became a PC in its own right (civil registration had taken over as the primary source of information by then); if I had I'd create a third entry for it. This is still less than ideal because chapel registers don't survive prior to the mid C18th & at some periods the PRs ignore the chapels so these baptisms have to be allocated to the PC. For individual villages, farms, hamlets etc. I standardise on the modern spelling followed by the historical spelling variations in parentheses. I may also add the township. e.g. Coldwell (Callwell, Cawell, Carrel), Austonley Unfortunately Gramps follows the common US fallacy of assuming that everyone belongs to a city as a unit of administration. This leaves me with two totally useless fields in the database, City and State, and nowhere to put the the real useful unit, the township so I now have townships entered in the City field and an empty State field. There is nowhere to put the additional information such as registration areas unless I were to use the State field. There's also no means of accounting for changes to parishes so I simply use the ancient parish names - again civil registration has made the modern names less useful. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

"Kiwi in Aus" <Wwftw_98@Yahoo.com> wrote in message news:KOOdnXnM3a69RjfMnZ2dnVY3go-dnZ2d@giganews.com... > How do others deal with this, you might start off with a place that is in > Essex at time of birth, but by the time a person dies same place is now > called Greater London, or South eastern Essex or what ever do you stay > with same place name or change with the passing time, I guess change with > time is more correct, > > -- > Cheers Jenny > I DON"T do mornings!!!! > Photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/jen_in_brisbane/ > Family Tree http://minerstree.tribalpages.com/ Hi Jenny. I agree with the others about not changing the data to fit with current geographical/administrative boundaries, or the names currently in use. However, there's a philosophical issue that's worth mentioning. When you encounter variant names for an ancestor person then - assuming you're sure they refer to the same person - you handle it in a particular way. You only have one instance of that person in your data but they may have several accepted alternative names for them. You probably also record the _actual_ name (as written, with any spelling errors and uncertain characters) against each source because that's part of the supporting evidence for that person. When dealing with places, though, some folks prefer to just treat them as simple names. The alternative - if your software supports it - is to treat them analogously to persons since each place can have its own history and alternative names. In your situation, this means that both your old and recent names would then refer to the same 'place entity' in your data, and that place entity holds its own details such as historical narrative, geographical/administrative parentage (analogous to lineage), boundary changes, name changes or spelling variations, etc. The analogy extends to recording the actual name in cases where the wording/spelling/interpretation is questionable as part of the supporting evidence. So, in summary, the difference is whether a "place" is simply a name in your data, or an actual entity with possibly several names, plus other properties. This was important to myself because I wanted to attach narrative, pictures, documents, etc., that referred to important places (anything from households upwards) but I don't believe this is the generally accepted approach. Tony Proctor

On 02/06/2013 06:41, Kiwi in Aus wrote: > How do others deal with this, you might start off with a place that is > in Essex at time of birth, but by the time a person dies same place is > now called Greater London, or South eastern Essex or what ever do you > stay with same place name or change with the passing time, I guess > change with time is more correct, 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. Jon -- WATCH OUT FOR THE SPAM BLOCK! Replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines' to reply in email!

On 03/06/2013 13:23, Jon Green wrote: > On 02/06/2013 06:41, Kiwi in Aus wrote: >> How do others deal with this, you might start off with a place that is >> in Essex at time of birth, but by the time a person dies same place is >> now called Greater London, or South eastern Essex or what ever do you >> stay with same place name or change with the passing time, I guess >> change with time is more correct, > > 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. -- Phil C.

"Kiwi in Aus" wrote in message news:KOOdnXnM3a69RjfMnZ2dnVY3go-dnZ2d@giganews.com... How do others deal with this, you might start off with a place that is in Essex at time of birth, but by the time a person dies same place is now called Greater London, or South eastern Essex or what ever do you stay with same place name or change with the passing time, I guess change with time is more correct, -- Cheers Jenny I DON"T do mornings!!!! Photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/jen_in_brisbane/ Family Tree http://minerstree.tribalpages.com/ I use the names that's actually on the document in the record, and then put a note about the change as well. Lesley Robertson

On 6/9/2013 9:19 AM, Lesley Robertson wrote: > "Kiwi in Aus" wrote in message > news:KOOdnXnM3a69RjfMnZ2dnVY3go-dnZ2d@giganews.com... > > How do others deal with this, you might start off with a place that is in > Essex at time of birth, but by the time a person dies same place is now > called Greater London, or South eastern Essex or what ever do you stay with > same place name or change with the passing time, I guess change with > time is > more correct, > I record the current location and note the historical name. My reasons are that if someone wanted to visit the site, or obtain records for property or person on the site, their first contact for those records would be the church or government currently responsible for the site.