* UK Historical County Mapping Software

[David Potter]

Hi Jane and Mike

One more question if I may. Using the FH Mapping Screen is there a way to sensibly Auto Zoom and have the 'found' place marker centred in the 'X' marks the spot in the centre of the mapping screen?

It is quite laborious to have to keep manually zooming in and re centreing the place marker.

Thank you.

[tatewise]

Yes, right-click on Place name in left-hand list and choose Locate in Map.
Or select the Place name in left-hand list and use Map > Locate in Map command.
That will be centred in Map on right and moving the slider up and down will zoom with that point central.
Also if you position cursor on cross-hair, then mouse wheel scroll will zoom and keep the cross-hair central.

BTW: Click F1 key to obtain Map Window Help page, and fallow links to Map Window Menu, etc.

[David Potter]

Thank you Mike - I thought it had to exist somewhere.

That's perfect.

[Gowermick]

David,
A possible reason Cwmcarn is being wrongly geocoded, is that the mapping software in FH has it in the area of Caerphilly, not Gwent (using OpenstreetMapping in FH). It doesn't seem to recognise Cwmcarn when combined with Gwent!

However, if you type Cwmcarn into the location field above the map (omitting the Gwent, Wales) and ask map to locate it, it correctly lists it (i.e. Cwmcarn,Caerphilly,Wales) Click on this and it centres the map correctly, you can then drag your Cwmcarn entry from the place list, and drop it onto the map in the correct spot. I find Jane's dragging marker solution ok if geocode is a little off, but prefer this alternative when marker is nowhere near it should be, as in this case.

If you ask it to locate Cwmcarn, Gwent, Wales it only lists Wales, Rotherham, England hence the miscoding.

[David Potter]

Thank you Mike - that worked a treat. It's annoying to find so many different interpretations of which county a place belongs to.

Many thanks.

[Gowermick]

David,
To be honest, I've given up worrying about it. To me, it doesn't matter whether Warrington is in Cheshire or Lancashire (it has been both), as long as I know where it is on a map, and my marker gets put on the right place.

My best buy, was a second hand "Gazetteer of Places in Great Britain" first published by Bartholomew in 1977. It is surprising how often this comes to the rescue, and is always within reach.

[David Potter]

Yes - I agree it is not worth worrying about, but my OCD doesn't allow me to ignore it. I'll try to track that publication down.

Thanks again.

[jimlad68]

The irony is one would expect places to be static but only the latitude and longitude are really.

So for past and future reference I would think PLACes should primarily be based on that. The problem is that there is not much genealogical software that stores it in a portable manner.

So for the present I have come up with this solution.

- Create my PLACes with the current location as understood in say Google Maps. But I try to keep a structure that also includes things like modern Counties, Greater Manchester etc, and as others have mentioned not too easy to be consistent.

- Allocate latitude and longitude

- If the current address does not match the old address I create a Source record with details of old addresses, not forgetting that 1 location could have had many addresses, buildings on it etc. To me this gives a much better picture of a location, and is easier to locate on current and old maps. If required I would then add this Source to the relevant fact. I also add the lat/long to the 10th comma separated field in the PLACe record. Within FH it would be easier to use the new PLACE feature, the reason I don't is that as yet FH does not support it's new PLACE record very well in reports (if at all?) and neither are the records portable (other than by conversion to something else with the Export Gedcom File plugin).

- As an aside I store my PLACe parts in 'biggest first' order, for why see:
Addresses - Suggestion for Best Practice (12965)

[tatewise]

Jim, I am not sure what Place record support you would like in Reports.
I guess a cross-reference from each Fact to a Places section similar to Sources would be neat.
It is possible to include Place details in Narrative Reports by customising the Sentence Templates using Data Reference codes such as {%FACT.PLAC>LATLONG%}.

Theoretically, products that support GEDCOM Draft Release 5.5.1 should support the same MAP.LATI/LONG data structure as used in FH Place records, but few such products implement any GEDCOM specification fully ~ sad but true!

[David Potter]

Thank you Jim for your explanation/technique. I am already following the first part - use Lat/Long to define where the place is on the map.

The second part I'll need to digest and understand that a little more.

Thanks again for the very welcome input.

[jimlad68]

Mike, thanks for those insights which I will have a play with in due course. However I can't find it now but I recollect that the "note" from either or both of the standard Gedcom PLACe or the new FH PLACE would not appear in Reports. Of course the individual detail is not as flexible as the Narrative reports with sentences.

Regardless, I am tempted to use the new FH PLACE note, (especially with the option of the export Gedcom plugin), but, using the Gedcom PLACe with a Source for that PLACe and adding that source to a fact would actually give more flexibility to only use it when required, otherwise it might be the old can't see the wood for the trees.

Excuse rushed response-erratic internet again.

[tatewise]

Jim, you are correct, the local Place field Note (%FACT.PLAC.NOTE2%) and the shared Place record Note (%FACT.PLAC>NOTE2%), along with with many other Note fields, are NOT included in Reports unless you specifically customise them into the Report.

The concept of having Source records cited by the Place field or the Fact itself forms the basis of how_to:create_locations_database_details|> Create a Locations Database of Place & Address Details that pre-dates the introduction of FH V6 Place records.

[davidf]

Trying to place a pin on a map is often a fruitless task - and sometimes misleading.

For example:

• I am current researching someone whose mother according to a census was born in "Oxford". This probably means the city, but could mean the county.
• Another census says "Oxford, Oxfordshire", so you think "Ah resolved" and you place the pin in the city of Oxford.
• But then you realise from other sources that she might have been born in the registration district of Headington - a large district stretching from the Oxford suburb of that name out into Oxfordshire
• Then you realise (using maps.familysearch.org) that Oxford St John the Baptist (a small parish roughly covering Merton College and its environs in central Oxford next to the cathedral) is listed as Headington RD!
• FreeBMD (an excellent source for the changing definitions of RDs - via its links to http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/reg/districts/index.html) incidentally reports that "The district Headington spans the boundaries of the counties of Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire"

So where do you stick the pin?

Unless you have an address, placing a pin on a map is a near fruitless task! Even then buildings and streets get renamed - and local authorities do not always keep good records of such renamings.

Even when mapping software allows you to use areas rather than points, you still need to treat the results with great care. I am not sure it is worth doing other than for specific exercises. The effort to ensure that all places in my file are adequately geo-coded seems very debatable.

[David Potter]

Hi David

I agree, all you can do in the examples you mention is to be quite general and place the pin where in all probability that's the most likely place.

Or to be so general that a wider area is chosen as somewhere the county of Oxfordshire - because that's the best info you have.

[jimlad68]

David, as you imply, genealogy is often not a precise art! (For fundamental starters, how sure are you that your 'legal' fathers fathers father.... is genealogically correct, and if not, is the 'social' connection just as important), however there are times when knowing something like geographic relativities can be interesting and explain connections and social conditions etc.

[Gowermick]

David,

Our ancestors don't help, but I think it is the context of the question that determines what answer they give for place of birth. For example, if they were born in Latchford (near Warrington), and they were living in the Warrington area at the census, they are likely to say Latchford, knowing that the enumerator would know where it was. However, if they had moved to Birmingham, they are more likely to say Warrington, as the enumerator would know that, rather than Latchford! Furthemore, where they were christened may be a long way from where they were born!

As Jim said, it is not an exact science, and as long as you get a feel for where they lived at various times in their lives, that's the best you can expect.

Personally, I was born in Melksham Cottage Hospital, whilst my parents were living nearby in Calne. Now what do you think I should refer to when asked where I came from? Melksham, where I spent about the first 10 days of my life, or Calne, where I spent the first three years of my life. ( I generally answer Calne)

[jimlad68]

Mike, I would say born at the hospital, but residence in Calne for a period of time. I would normally presume (can be dodgy) that a baptism locatoin is also residence. I must admit that if there is no other evidence I will often use the baptism entry (if soon after birth) as place of birth, or at least the town/district.

[Gowermick]

Jim,
I purposely phrased the question 'where did you come from', not 'where were you born' to demonstrate the importance of context, and to illustrate that if you were illiterate, your answer would depend on how the question was posed by the enumerator.

I too use baptism location where there is a lack of alternative sources, but have found that where other sources do exist, the baptism location often differs from birthplace, sometimes by miles. I found this to be particularly true of non-conformists, whose places of worship can be few and far between.