Steve Hayes wrote: > 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". The odd thing is -- the standardi()ation set out to deal with spelling, so that one didn't end up with typos in place names...and so someone looking for Snarfingdon didn't have to /remember/ to check for 42 variations. I don't know when the intention did a sea-change, but like everyone else, I do wish it hadn't! Cheryl