London, Places?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

London, Places?

paul womack
(This question may be generic to all metropolises)

London is quite big, and it overlaps roughly 4 counties.

I have a large numbers of Ancestors/Events in London.

To people in the UK such (burrough) names as Islington,
Bethnal Green, Southwark, Wimbledon, all have
quite separate identities.

My problem is the "pure" containment model of Places.

Whilst (in the old model) I can say:

Locality: Bethnal Green
City: London
County: Middlesex

and

Locality: Southwark
City: London
County: Surrey

and

Locality: Greenwich
City: London
County: Kent

and

Locality: West Ham
City: London
County: Essex

In the Places/Enclosed by model, this falls down.

If I make London "Enclosed by" Middlesex, Surrey and Kent (and Essex),
I then end up with Greenwich being in Middlesex, and West Ham being in Surrey...

(I am ignoring the further nightmare that all this changes with time).

Can any suggest a practical representation for "London"?

  BugBear

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: London, Places?

Ron Johnson
On 02/26/2016 05:07 AM, paul womack wrote:

> (This question may be generic to all metropolises)
>
> London is quite big, and it overlaps roughly 4 counties.
>
> I have a large numbers of Ancestors/Events in London.
>
> To people in the UK such (burrough) names as Islington,
> Bethnal Green, Southwark, Wimbledon, all have
> quite separate identities.
>
> My problem is the "pure" containment model of Places.
>
> Whilst (in the old model) I can say:
>
> Locality: Bethnal Green
> City: London
> County: Middlesex
>
> and
>
> Locality: Southwark
> City: London
> County: Surrey
>
> and
>
> Locality: Greenwich
> City: London
> County: Kent
>
> and
>
> Locality: West Ham
> City: London
> County: Essex
>
> In the Places/Enclosed by model, this falls down.
>
> If I make London "Enclosed by" Middlesex, Surrey and Kent (and Essex),
> I then end up with Greenwich being in Middlesex, and West Ham being in Surrey...
>
> (I am ignoring the further nightmare that all this changes with time).
>
> Can any suggest a practical representation for "London"?

The "cities":
"London (Middlesex)"
"London (Surrey)"
"London (Kent)"
"London (Essex)"

--
"I compare what the data tells me.  I don't do things by votes or authority."
Lawrence Krauss


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: London, Places?

paul womack
Ron Johnson wrote:

>>
>> Can any suggest a practical representation for "London"?
>
> The "cities":
> "London (Middlesex)"
> "London (Surrey)"
> "London (Kent)"
> "London (Essex)"

Ooh; that has promise. (I assume you intend that e.g.

City: "London (Surrey)"
is enclosed by
County:"Surrey"

etc.
)

Could I also create a
City:London

Such that all of your proposed subcities are also enclosed
by City:London, but that (crucially) City:London isn't enclosed
by a county, but only by Country:England.

That would allow me to search for events in "London"

   BugBear

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: London, Places?

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by Ron Johnson
On 02/26/2016 05:51 AM, paul womack wrote:

> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Can any suggest a practical representation for "London"?
>>
>> The "cities":
>> "London (Middlesex)"
>> "London (Surrey)"
>> "London (Kent)"
>> "London (Essex)"
>
> Ooh; that has promise. (I assume you intend that e.g.
>
> City: "London (Surrey)"
> is enclosed by
> County:"Surrey"
>
> etc.
> )
>

Yes.

--
"I compare what the data tells me.  I don't do things by votes or authority."
Lawrence Krauss


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: London, Places?

Keith Jacobs
In reply to this post by paul womack
Middlesex, Surrey, Kent and Essex are Counties, not Cities.

There are two cities in London - the City of Westminster and the City of
London, both are contained within the County of Middlesex.

Greater London (since 1972) consists of The Cities of Westminster and
London and parts of the Counties of Middlesex, Surrey, Kent and Essex.

Regards
Keith Jacobs

On 26/02/16 11:51, paul womack wrote:

> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>>> Can any suggest a practical representation for "London"?
>> The "cities":
>> "London (Middlesex)"
>> "London (Surrey)"
>> "London (Kent)"
>> "London (Essex)"
> Ooh; that has promise. (I assume you intend that e.g.
>
> City: "London (Surrey)"
> is enclosed by
> County:"Surrey"
>
> etc.
> )
>
> Could I also create a
> City:London
>
> Such that all of your proposed subcities are also enclosed
> by City:London, but that (crucially) City:London isn't enclosed
> by a county, but only by Country:England.
>
> That would allow me to search for events in "London"
>
>     BugBear
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
> APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
> Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
> Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: London, Places?

enno
In reply to this post by paul womack
Hi Paul,
> Could I also create a
> City:London
>
> Such that all of your proposed subcities are also enclosed
> by City:London, but that (crucially) City:London isn't enclosed
> by a county, but only by Country:England.
>
> That would allow me to search for events in "London"
There's a standards finder on FamilySearch

https://familysearch.org/stdfinder/PlaceStandardLookup.jsp

which suggests London, Greater London, England.

You can use the new version for more variants.

cheers,

Enno


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: London, Places?

Peter Merchant
On 26/02/16 12:05, Enno Borgsteede wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>> Could I also create a
>> City:London
>>
>> Such that all of your proposed subcities are also enclosed
>> by City:London, but that (crucially) City:London isn't enclosed
>> by a county, but only by Country:England.
>>
>> That would allow me to search for events in "London"
> There's a standards finder on FamilySearch
>
> https://familysearch.org/stdfinder/PlaceStandardLookup.jsp
>
> which suggests London, Greater London, England.
>
> You can use the new version for more variants.
>
> cheers,
>
> Enno
>
>
This is one of those that is going to be date dependent.   I was born in
Romford, Essex, which is now Romford, (borough of)Havering, Greater
London, England. I would suggest we follow as Enno suggests, except that
there will be very few people from London, Gr. London, as the particular
area that you could identify as 'London' is probably the old City of
London.

Peter M.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: London, Places?

paul womack
In reply to this post by Ron Johnson
Ron Johnson wrote:
  >
> The "cities":
> "London (Middlesex)"
> "London (Surrey)"
> "London (Kent)"
> "London (Essex)"

It appears I should have just relaxed.

When you import from 3.4 to 4.2, if your
locations were of the form I described,
the Importer appears to view
"Name" and "Enclosed by" as forming a primary key
for re-recognition purposes.

The upshot of this is that after an import I
found I had 4 distinct City's called London,
contained by 4 different County's - Middlesex, Surrey, Kent & Essex.

And (further) given that a Place is normally described
by its containment hierarchy, these 4 City's normally show up as

London, Middlesex, England
London, Surrey, England
London, Kent, England
London, Essex, England

:-)

  BugBear

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: London, Places?

Douglas Bainbridge
On 26/02/16 12:52, paul womack wrote:

> Ron Johnson wrote:
>    >
>> The "cities":
>> "London (Middlesex)"
>> "London (Surrey)"
>> "London (Kent)"
>> "London (Essex)"
> It appears I should have just relaxed.
>
> When you import from 3.4 to 4.2, if your
> locations were of the form I described,
> the Importer appears to view
> "Name" and "Enclosed by" as forming a primary key
> for re-recognition purposes.
>
> The upshot of this is that after an import I
> found I had 4 distinct City's called London,
> contained by 4 different County's - Middlesex, Surrey, Kent & Essex.
>
> And (further) given that a Place is normally described
> by its containment hierarchy, these 4 City's normally show up as
>
> London, Middlesex, England
> London, Surrey, England
> London, Kent, England
> London, Essex, England
>
> :-)
>
>    BugBear
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're alright unless you have dates after 1965: then the  
fun begins!

Doug

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: London, Places?

paul womack
Douglas Bainbridge wrote:

> You're alright unless you have dates after 1965: then the fun begins!

In truth, to *fully* represent the development and growth of London from
say 1650 onwards, and the gradual absorption of separate towns and villages
to become areas and suburbs would be a complex, time consuming
and fascinating project. :-)

But I've got some genealogy to be getting on with. ;-)

  BugBear

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: London, Places?

Douglas Bainbridge
On 26/02/16 13:52, paul womack wrote:

> Douglas Bainbridge wrote:
>
>> You're alright unless you have dates after 1965: then the
>> fun begins!
>
> In truth, to *fully* represent the development and growth
> of London from
> say 1650 onwards, and the gradual absorption of separate
> towns and villages
> to become areas and suburbs would be a complex, time
> consuming
> and fascinating project. :-)
>
> But I've got some genealogy to be getting on with. ;-)
>
>  BugBear

True enough - it's only too easy to get sidetracked :-)

Doug

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: London, Places?

Tim Lyons
Administrator
In reply to this post by Keith Jacobs
Keith Jacobs wrote
Middlesex, Surrey, Kent and Essex are Counties, not Cities.

There are two cities in London - the City of Westminster and the City of
London, both are contained within the County of Middlesex.

Greater London (since 1972) consists of The Cities of Westminster and
London and parts of the Counties of Middlesex, Surrey, Kent and Essex.
As well as being time dependent (as pointed out elsewhere in this thread), it is actually more complicated that this, see the post from Anonymous dated 12 Sep 2008, here:
https://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichCountyDoesLondonBelong/zjmjr/post.htm

Unfortunately, you can't (mostly) just call it all 'Greater London', because a great deal of evidence will specifically be 'some borough', Surrey or whatever, and you will want to record that.

As said elsewhere, in order to actually get on with family history, I have just recorded my data as <Locality, London, Country> (e.g.) Lambeth in London in UK, as opposed to everywhere else which I record as <City, County, Country>(e.g.) Norwich in Norfolk in UK, but I record Lambeth, Surrey in the title so that doesn't get lost.

By the way, having four separate auto-generated places called 'London' is bound to lead to confusion, I would strongly recommend renaming them to 'London (Surrey)' etc.

Tim.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: London, Places?

Nick Hall
On 29/02/16 00:52, Tim Lyons wrote:
> As said elsewhere, in order to actually get on with family history, I have
> just recorded my data as <Locality, London, Country> (e.g.) Lambeth in
> London in UK, as opposed to everywhere else which I record as <City, County,
> Country>(e.g.) Norwich in Norfolk in UK, but I record Lambeth, Surrey in the
> title so that doesn't get lost.

I do something very similar.

However, Lambeth can be placed within both Surrey and London.  There is
no need to create both links at the same time.  It is quite acceptable
to start with Lambeth within Surrey, and then add the link to London,
with date ranges, at a later stage.


>
> By the way, having four separate auto-generated places called 'London' is
> bound to lead to confusion, I would strongly recommend renaming them to
> 'London (Surrey)' etc.
>

I agree.

Create separate places for the City of London, the County of London and
Greater London.


Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: London, Places?

Douglas Bainbridge
On 29/02/16 17:13, Nick Hall wrote:
On 29/02/16 00:52, Tim Lyons wrote:
As said elsewhere, in order to actually get on with family history, I have
just recorded my data as <Locality, London, Country> (e.g.) Lambeth in
London in UK, as opposed to everywhere else which I record as <City, County,
Country>(e.g.) Norwich in Norfolk in UK, but I record Lambeth, Surrey in the
title so that doesn't get lost.
I do something very similar.

However, Lambeth can be placed within both Surrey and London.  There is 
no need to create both links at the same time.  It is quite acceptable 
to start with Lambeth within Surrey, and then add the link to London, 
with date ranges, at a later stage.


By the way, having four separate auto-generated places called 'London' is
bound to lead to confusion, I would strongly recommend renaming them to
'London (Surrey)' etc.

I agree.

Create separate places for the City of London, the County of London and 
Greater London.


Nick.

Doesn't this have similarities to the "intermittent existence" problem posted in an earlier thread?:
the Q<date1><date2><date3> :: London<early version><later version><modern version>
is being resolved as
Q1<date1> :: City of London
Q2<date2> :: County of London
Q3<date3> :: Greater London.
although London's a lot more straightforward than, say, some of the places that fall into Poland, Prussia, Duchy of Warsaw, Austria, etc. depending on the date.
Certainly defining separate Qs: Q1<date1>, Q2<date2>, Q3<date3> makes for a much cleaner 'Enclosed by' hierarchical view.

On the other hand the normal Place Tree View becomes a lot messier using the proper names for  Q1<date1>, Q2<date2> and Q3<date3>.
For example Kingdom of Poland, Second Polish Republic, People's Republic of Poland, Republic of Poland don't stay together but appear in all over the tree.
They *could* be in one place i.e. recorded as Q<date1><date2><date3> (with Kingdom of Poland, Second Polish Republic, People's Republic of Poland, Republic of Poland or  City of London, County of London, Greater London  as alternative names), but if I understand correctly this needs a clearer view, waiting on Nick's input

Doug



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users