Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

Ron Johnson
Hi,

How are you all classifying tiny, named Places like Montague, Texas
(census-designated place) and Sassafras, Kentucky (unincorporated community)?

They aren't towns, hamlets, neighborhoods, etc, etc.  Just... named clusters
of houses on a map.  I've taken to classifying them as Localities, but was
wondering if anyone else had a better idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassafras,_Kentucky
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague,_Texas

--
"Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a
crime to examine the laws of heat." Christopher Morley


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

Peter Merchant
On 27/07/15 05:45, Ron Johnson wrote:

> Hi,
>
> How are you all classifying tiny, named Places like Montague, Texas
> (census-designated place) and Sassafras, Kentucky (unincorporated community)?
>
> They aren't towns, hamlets, neighborhoods, etc, etc.  Just... named clusters
> of houses on a map.  I've taken to classifying them as Localities, but was
> wondering if anyone else had a better idea.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassafras,_Kentucky
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague,_Texas
>
Looks like I have not been consistent. They have been either
Neighborhoods or villages.
My best examples are Summerseat and Stanwardine, near Ramsbottom,
Lancashire, England

Peter

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

Rich Lakey
In reply to this post by Ron Johnson
Glad to see the question. Hope to see more answers.
I am using 4.0.4 and I set them as localities. Also cemeteries and townships.
Rich

On 07/26/2015 11:45 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
Hi,

How are you all classifying tiny, named Places like Montague, Texas 
(census-designated place) and Sassafras, Kentucky (unincorporated community)?

They aren't towns, hamlets, neighborhoods, etc, etc.  Just... named clusters 
of houses on a map.  I've taken to classifying them as Localities, but was 
wondering if anyone else had a better idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassafras,_Kentucky
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague,_Texas



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

Britton, Gerald

This goes back to an old discussion I had once.  The basic idea was to use Place as a time-independent anchor.  The actually city/town/county etc. could be captured in an address object (one or more) attached to a Place object.  So, I have a cemetery as a Place, which has one or more addresses depending on, well, politics and other things.

 

From: Rich [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 12:58 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

 

Glad to see the question. Hope to see more answers.
I am using 4.0.4 and I set them as localities. Also cemeteries and townships.
Rich

On 07/26/2015 11:45 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:

Hi,
 
How are you all classifying tiny, named Places like Montague, Texas 
(census-designated place) and Sassafras, Kentucky (unincorporated community)?
 
They aren't towns, hamlets, neighborhoods, etc, etc.  Just... named clusters 
of houses on a map.  I've taken to classifying them as Localities, but was 
wondering if anyone else had a better idea.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassafras,_Kentucky
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague,_Texas
 

 



If you wish to unsubscribe from receiving commercial electronic messages from TD Bank Group, please click here or go to the following web address: www.td.com/tdoptout
Si vous souhaitez vous désabonner des messages électroniques de nature commerciale envoyés par Groupe Banque TD veuillez cliquer ici ou vous rendre à l'adresse www.td.com/tddesab


NOTICE: Confidential message which may be privileged. Unauthorized use/disclosure prohibited. If received in error, please go to www.td.com/legal for instructions.
AVIS : Message confidentiel dont le contenu peut être privilégié. Utilisation/divulgation interdites sans permission. Si reçu par erreur, prière d'aller au www.td.com/francais/avis_juridique pour des instructions.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by Rich Lakey
That's imminently doable now with a user-defined Place type named "Cemetery" and the v4.1 Place hierarchy system.



On 07/27/2015 02:18 PM, Britton, Gerald wrote:

This goes back to an old discussion I had once.  The basic idea was to use Place as a time-independent anchor.  The actually city/town/county etc. could be captured in an address object (one or more) attached to a Place object.  So, I have a cemetery as a Place, which has one or more addresses depending on, well, politics and other things.

 

From: Rich [[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 12:58 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

 

Glad to see the question. Hope to see more answers.
I am using 4.0.4 and I set them as localities. Also cemeteries and townships.
Rich

On 07/26/2015 11:45 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:

Hi,
 
How are you all classifying tiny, named Places like Montague, Texas 
(census-designated place) and Sassafras, Kentucky (unincorporated community)?
 
They aren't towns, hamlets, neighborhoods, etc, etc.  Just... named clusters 
of houses on a map.  I've taken to classifying them as Localities, but was 
wondering if anyone else had a better idea.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassafras,_Kentucky
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague,_Texas


-- 
"Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a 
crime to examine the laws of heat." Christopher Morley

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

adrian.davey
In reply to this post by Ron Johnson
[I have been having internet connection problems, and my response on this yesterday appears to have gone into a black hole.]

My take on this is that there is no such thing as a "right" answer! Considerable flexibility is needed. And "consistency" may be a great idea, but practicality often gets in the way!

It seems to me to be highly culture-specific [e.g. in Australia it is not common for people to use the terms "hamlet" or "neighbourhood" in this context, and—unsurprisingly—some of the place type designations used here are absent from the gramps lexicon!]. It also depends on the level of spatial detail a particular user chooses [supposing they even attempt to be "consistent" about it!]. We are not helped by some apparently familiar designations having inconsistent meanings and dynamics in different contexts [e.g. compare "Parish" in the contexts of "Ecclesiastical", "Civil" or "Cadastral"]. The nomenclature is highly dependent on the particular cultures and jurisdictions [and land administration histories] that relate to different families.

Even the term "tiny" is problematic, because for particular genealogical purposes the significance of that place might be high, even if its population or built fabric was or is relatively small, and even if the number for whom it is significant is small. You refer to a [fairly small] unincorporated community, but I can point you to a huge officially-designated Unincorporated Area [in western NSW]! Thankfully, it is a genealogically insignificant spatial entity, because real people still have practical ways of connecting with places conceived of at human landscape scales that don't rely on official designations!

Here in Australia, we have formally [and informally] named "localities" in some jurisdictions which are considerably larger in area than some countries! There are also plenty of points on a map where there is literally no current human settlement, but there is a well-known placename for it [and here I'm talking about cultural points, not just the many geographically-defined ones]. We would still be comfortable using the descriptor "locality" for either end of that scale, as long as it served our purpose. Other designations such as "district", "region" or even "area" might seem preferable to some, for the same place, but there are lots of competing factors. The scale of a "region", "district", "area" or "locality" is really in the eye of the beholder.

To give an example, in the vaguely defined "region" in southern NSW called for more than a century "The Riverina" [an area of well over 100,000 sq km], in the main town of Griffith [which has been officially designated as a "city" for over 20 years, though I bet the majority of its citizens and most other Australians still call it a "town"], the local newspaper calls itself "The Area News"!

The significance of a place is also a function of its proximity/isolation  from larger centre[s]. One thing we have an abundance of is distance!

Some folk will attempt to use official regionalisation schemes where they exist, others will ignore them, despite or perhaps because they exist! In some cultures the "official" regions are fairly stable, in others they may continue to be extremely unstable and so as a matter of practicality it is better to stay away from them. Those who do try to use official schemes will be well aware how exasperating it can be keeping up with the twists and turns of changing boundaries and names over time! [One of my own family connections originates in the Oxfordshire/Berkshire "region" of England [whatever that is!], but there is a PhD in understanding the dynamics of that regionalisation!]

For a long time, gramps effectively forced me to use the place type "city" to refer to genealogically-significant places in the middle of nowhere [now population zero, but once a busy settlement], as well as large metropolitan centres and everything in between! Even now, with the ability to define our own place types, gramps sorting and filtering still constrains how we represent places in a database, and it is still not easy to actually use custom place types or to keep unwanted types out of the way. The current scheme is no better-suited than the previous for giving spatial expression to events that span multiple cities or countries or continents, or indeed span a great deal of ocean [as in the Pacific War in WW2]. Someone, for example, whose occupation is "solar-passive architect", practising in a region encompassing major parts of several jurisdictions, is still a challenge to represent spatially in gramps in a simple manner.

A practical consideration, probably common to most cultures, is that the level and consistency of hierarchical detail is often strongly influenced by the key families involved, and their shared or assumed knowledge and pretensions [some of which is inconsistent with "official" nomenclature anyway!]. Insiders may all know, for example,  that small places are in effect "sub-districts", "suburbs" or "localities" within bigger ones, but often it makes much more sense to use the higher-order label anyway. It becomes a delicate choice for the person managing the database to decide how these scalar relationships are represented within the available fields, and as a consequence appear in reports. I am conscious in my own case that I have responded to family expectations for greater granularity in place definitions where the family insisted on it, but broader-scale definitions where most of them would struggle if I used the same high-definition approach [and the less familiar the terrain, the harder it would be for me to apply the high-resolution approach anyway]. In taxonomical parlance, I am a "lumper" rather than a splitter", so whenever I am faced with a tricky choice, I tend to opt for the larger and more familiar spatial entity, not the smaller and esoteric. This is also why I have asked if we could ensure that "Alternative" names can get included in finds for places, so we have the option of declaring that we have included smaller-scale entities within larger. It would be better still if we had a field that allowed us to capture a list of the subsidiary places consciously included. The best available at present is to use either or both of a note and the Alternative names mechanism.

Another consideration in applying a place hierarchy is that some of the intermediates [particularly in our case local or municipal government] are unstable, and it is often difficult to find out the "correct" current intermediate in which a particular place would be enclosed [in gramps parlance] if the hierarchy was to be complete. Here, the practical solution is to bypass the unstable level and include the place as enclosed within for example "Sydney, NSW"—which actually signifies "Greater Metropolitan Sydney" without the cumbersome name, not the [relatively small] "City of Sydney" or whatever other formally-defined municipality within "Sydney" the place may technically fall within—but if it is a small country town it is better to enclose it directly in the place "NSW" than whatever its actual current municipal entity might be. Only a few years ago it was likely the municipal entity was something different in either or both name or boundary, and a few years from now it is likely to be something different again! In other cultures, the administrative structure of provinces, counties and cities is much more stable.

It also helps if there is, for example, some GEDCOM-related reason why a user might wish to know about the consequences of choosing to use or not to use an approach, that they get this information before it is too late!

To summarise, my advice for gramps is to be enabling, not prescriptive!

Adrian Davey | Canberra AUSTRALIA
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unincorporated communities and Census DesignatedPlaces

ACProctor
Apologies for chiming in on this thread. Place hierarchies do not have to
have a fixed designation for each level; they can be dependent on the
country, culture, and the time-period. The only proviso is that that each
level completely encloses the previous levels. Local features, such as the
"Bendigo's Ring" that I used as an example a few years ago, can be included
with a custom designation if necessary.

Furthermore, there may be multiple hierarchy types (local administrative and
national, which I hope to write about soon); time-dependent spelling,
boundaries, and event parents; and places absolutely *can* be used as a
time-independent "anchor". I've been saying this ages so I entirely agree
with that suggestion.  :-)

    Tony Proctor

----- Original Message -----
From: "adrian.davey" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Unincorporated communities and Census
DesignatedPlaces


> [I have been having internet connection problems, and my response on this
> yesterday appears to have gone into a black hole.]
>
> My take on this is that there is no such thing as a "right" answer!
> Considerable flexibility is needed. And "consistency" may be a great idea,
> but practicality often gets in the way!
>
> It seems to me to be highly culture-specific [e.g. in Australia it is not
> common for people to use the terms "hamlet" or "neighbourhood" in this
> context, and—unsurprisingly—some of the place type designations used here
> are absent from the gramps lexicon!]. It also depends on the level of
> spatial detail a particular user chooses [supposing they even attempt to
> be
> "consistent" about it!]. We are not helped by some apparently familiar
> designations having inconsistent meanings and dynamics in different
> contexts
> [e.g. compare "Parish" in the contexts of "Ecclesiastical", "Civil" or
> "Cadastral"]. The nomenclature is highly dependent on the particular
> cultures and jurisdictions [and land administration histories] that relate
> to different families.
>
> Even the term "tiny" is problematic, because for particular genealogical
> purposes the significance of that place might be high, even if its
> population or built fabric was or is relatively small, and even if the
> number for whom it is significant is small. You refer to a [fairly small]
> unincorporated community, but I can point you to a huge
> officially-designated Unincorporated Area [in western NSW]! Thankfully, it
> is a genealogically insignificant spatial entity, because real people
> still
> have practical ways of connecting with places conceived of at human
> landscape scales that don't rely on official designations!
>
> Here in Australia, we have formally [and informally] named "localities" in
> some jurisdictions which are considerably larger in area than some
> countries! There are also plenty of points on a map where there is
> literally
> no current human settlement, but there is a well-known placename for it
> [and
> here I'm talking about cultural points, not just the many
> geographically-defined ones]. We would still be comfortable using the
> descriptor "locality" for either end of that scale, as long as it served
> our
> purpose. Other designations such as "district", "region" or even "area"
> might seem preferable to some, for the same place, but there are lots of
> competing factors. The scale of a "region", "district", "area" or
> "locality"
> is really in the eye of the beholder.
>
> To give an example, in the vaguely defined "region" in southern NSW called
> for more than a century "The Riverina" [an area of well over 100,000 sq
> km],
> in the main town of Griffith [which has been officially designated as a
> "city" for over 20 years, though I bet the majority of its citizens and
> most
> other Australians still call it a "town"], the local newspaper calls
> itself
> "The Area News"!
>
> The significance of a place is also a function of its proximity/isolation
> from larger centre[s]. One thing we have an abundance of is distance!
>
> Some folk will attempt to use official regionalisation schemes where they
> exist, others will ignore them, despite or perhaps because they exist! In
> some cultures the "official" regions are fairly stable, in others they may
> continue to be extremely unstable and so as a matter of practicality it is
> better to stay away from them. Those who do try to use official schemes
> will
> be well aware how exasperating it can be keeping up with the twists and
> turns of changing boundaries and names over time! [One of my own family
> connections originates in the Oxfordshire/Berkshire "region" of England
> [whatever that is!], but there is a PhD in understanding the dynamics of
> that regionalisation!]
>
> For a long time, gramps effectively forced me to use the place type "city"
> to refer to genealogically-significant places in the middle of nowhere
> [now
> population zero, but once a busy settlement], as well as large
> metropolitan
> centres and everything in between! Even now, with the ability to define
> our
> own place types, gramps sorting and filtering still constrains how we
> represent places in a database, and it is still not easy to actually use
> custom place types or to keep unwanted types out of the way. The current
> scheme is no better-suited than the previous for giving spatial expression
> to events that span multiple cities or countries or continents, or indeed
> span a great deal of ocean [as in the Pacific War in WW2]. Someone, for
> example, whose occupation is "solar-passive architect", practising in a
> region encompassing major parts of several jurisdictions, is still a
> challenge to represent spatially in gramps in a simple manner.
>
> A practical consideration, probably common to most cultures, is that the
> level and consistency of hierarchical detail is often strongly influenced
> by
> the key families involved, and their shared or assumed knowledge and
> pretensions [some of which is inconsistent with "official" nomenclature
> anyway!]. Insiders may all know, for example,  that small places are in
> effect "sub-districts", "suburbs" or "localities" within bigger ones, but
> often it makes much more sense to use the higher-order label anyway. It
> becomes a delicate choice for the person managing the database to decide
> how
> these scalar relationships are represented within the available fields,
> and
> as a consequence appear in reports. I am conscious in my own case that I
> have responded to family expectations for greater granularity in place
> definitions where the family insisted on it, but broader-scale definitions
> where most of them would struggle if I used the same high-definition
> approach [and the less familiar the terrain, the harder it would be for me
> to apply the high-resolution approach anyway]. In taxonomical parlance, I
> am
> a "lumper" rather than a splitter", so whenever I am faced with a tricky
> choice, I tend to opt for the larger and more familiar spatial entity, not
> the smaller and esoteric. This is also why I have asked if we could ensure
> that "Alternative" names can get included in finds for places, so we have
> the option of declaring that we have included smaller-scale entities
> within
> larger. It would be better still if we had a field that allowed us to
> capture a list of the subsidiary places consciously included. The best
> available at present is to use either or both of a note and the
> Alternative
> names mechanism.
>
> Another consideration in applying a place hierarchy is that some of the
> intermediates [particularly in our case local or municipal government] are
> unstable, and it is often difficult to find out the "correct" current
> intermediate in which a particular place would be enclosed [in gramps
> parlance] if the hierarchy was to be complete. Here, the practical
> solution
> is to bypass the unstable level and include the place as enclosed within
> for
> example "Sydney, NSW"—which actually signifies "Greater Metropolitan
> Sydney"
> without the cumbersome name, not the [relatively small] "City of Sydney"
> or
> whatever other formally-defined municipality within "Sydney" the place may
> technically fall within—but if it is a small country town it is better to
> enclose it directly in the place "NSW" than whatever its actual current
> municipal entity might be. Only a few years ago it was likely the
> municipal
> entity was something different in either or both name or boundary, and a
> few
> years from now it is likely to be something different again! In other
> cultures, the administrative structure of provinces, counties and cities
> is
> much more stable.
>
> It also helps if there is, for example, some GEDCOM-related reason why a
> user might wish to know about the consequences of choosing to use or not
> to
> use an approach, that they get this information before it is too late!
>
> To summarise, my advice for gramps is to be enabling, not prescriptive!
>
> Adrian Davey | Canberra AUSTRALIA
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/Unincorporated-communities-and-Census-Designated-Places-tp4671721p4671737.html
> Sent from the GRAMPS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

Elvin Birth
In reply to this post by Ron Johnson
The Place hierarchy is commonly viewed as higher to lower.

In some cases, I view the hierarchy from bottom - up. 

Farm is a listed type that is normally a single plot of land. 

Building is also a single plot and may or may not be inhabited. 

Cemetery, not a listed type, is also a single plot of (uninhabited) land despite the multiple ownerships and I use the Unknown type.

Village, a listed type, is a small cluster of inhabited plots and without governmental status.

Hamlet, a listed type, in my view is a village with a core industry such as mill or rail center which serves as pseudo government. The center of government is wherever the checkerboard is located. 

Township, not a listed type, is the lowest formal level of government and I use the Locality type.

The lower to upper view helps me assign Type quite often.

Elvin Birth

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

Brad Rogers
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:57:20 -0400
Elvin Birth <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello Elvin,

>Village, a listed type, is a small cluster of inhabited plots and

In the UK, villages must have a church, otherwise.....

>Hamlet, a listed type, in my view is a village with a core industry
>such as mill or rail center which serves as pseudo government. The

....it's a hamlet.  Industry, or lack thereof, is not relevant.

--
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
Watching the people get lairy
I Predict A Riot - Kaiser Chiefs

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users

attachment0 (484 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by Ron Johnson
On 07/28/2015 09:57 AM, Elvin Birth wrote:
> Cemetery, not a listed type, is also a single plot of (uninhabited) land
> despite the multiple ownerships and I use the Unknown type.
[snip]
> Township, not a listed type, is the lowest formal level of government and
> I use the Locality type.

Note that Gramps allows you to create new Place types.  Thus, my trees now
have Church, Township and Cemetery types.

--
"Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a
crime to examine the laws of heat." Christopher Morley


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

Nick Hall
In reply to this post by adrian.davey
On 28/07/15 07:23, adrian.davey wrote:
> My take on this is that there is no such thing as a "right" answer!
> Considerable flexibility is needed. And "consistency" may be a great idea,
> but practicality often gets in the way!

The new place hierarchy was intended to provide greater flexibility than
the fixed fields of the earlier versions.  Users can choose the place
types they use and the level of detail they record.

As you say, there is no "right" answer.

Users should also feel free to define their own place types.  I compiled
the pre-defined list from terms that came to mind at the time.


> Even now, with the ability to define our
> own place types, gramps sorting and filtering still constrains how we
> represent places in a database, and it is still not easy to actually use
> custom place types or to keep unwanted types out of the way.

Do you have any suggestions how we can improve this functionality? What
problems are you having?


> This is also why I have asked if we could ensure
> that "Alternative" names can get included in finds for places, so we have
> the option of declaring that we have included smaller-scale entities within
> larger. It would be better still if we had a field that allowed us to
> capture a list of the subsidiary places consciously included.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.  Alternative names should be
searched by filter rules.

Smaller scale entities can be enclosed by larger entities.  Are you
trying to describe the geographic area covered by a place?


Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

adrian.davey
>> Even now, with the ability to define our
>> own place types, gramps sorting and filtering still constrains how we
>> represent places in a database, and it is still not easy to actually use
>> custom place types or to keep unwanted types out of the way.

>Do you have any suggestions how we can improve this functionality? What
>problems are you having?

At the moment, if a user is in the place edit dialog and selects the "type" drop-down, they get the default list of types, with any custom ones grouped at the bottom, completely out of any logical alphabetical order, and [depending on the number added] with some or many of them off the bottom of the screen. As far as I can tell, they cannot rename or delete default types to avoid confusion with custom ones they may have created, or to make the custom ones more easily visible. There is no way of which I am aware to re-order the custom names.

>> This is also why I have asked if we could ensure
>> that "Alternative" names can get included in finds for places, so we have
>> the option of declaring that we have included smaller-scale entities within
>> larger. It would be better still if we had a field that allowed us to
>> capture a list of the subsidiary places consciously included.

>I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.  Alternative names should be
>searched by filter rules.

>Smaller scale entities can be enclosed by larger entities.  Are you
>trying to describe the geographic area covered by a place?

In my case, I have always made a quite conscious decision to limit the proliferation of placenames unless it is actually remote from others [and of course remoteness is relative, and context-dependant!], or a significant number of records point to it with that particular name, or there is some other historical reason to use the name. So an esoteric long-forgotten name that for all practical modern purposes is subsumed within another is better included in the more familiar place as a note. Such place names are NOT necessarily alternative names for the [whole] modern place, so much as now enclosed by it. At the moment, the best approximation in gramps is to add these "included" places—but which I DO NOT want to create as a separate place to clog my place table—as names under "Alternative names", and/or in a note to the main place.

But, as I have noted in feature request 0008743, the find dialog when you are using the places selection drop-down does NOT allow the "Alternative names" field to be searched, so you cannot use that mechanism even to be reminded that you have previously included that name within a previously defined place in your table. At that point, unless you remember you have previously included x within y, you are at risk of creating a completely unnecessary duplicate. It would be better that there was another field that literally did allow for "included" places, and that it too could be used in a find operation.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

Douglas Bainbridge
On 31/07/15 00:08, adrian.davey wrote:

> <snip>
> At the moment, if a user is in the place edit dialog and selects the "type"
> drop-down, they get the default list of types, with any custom ones grouped
> at the bottom, completely out of any logical alphabetical order, and
> [depending on the number added] with some or many of them off the bottom of
> the screen. As far as I can tell, they cannot rename or delete default types
> to avoid confusion with custom ones they may have created, or to make the
> custom ones more easily visible. There is no way of which I am aware to
> re-order the custom names.
>
>
<snip>

This sounds like bugs #5150 and #8643 re-surfacing in a new
context

Doug

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

Nick Hall
In reply to this post by adrian.davey
On 31/07/15 00:08, adrian.davey wrote:
> At the moment, if a user is in the place edit dialog and selects the "type"
> drop-down, they get the default list of types, with any custom ones grouped
> at the bottom, completely out of any logical alphabetical order, and
> [depending on the number added] with some or many of them off the bottom of
> the screen. As far as I can tell, they cannot rename or delete default types
> to avoid confusion with custom ones they may have created, or to make the
> custom ones more easily visible. There is no way of which I am aware to
> re-order the custom names.

Yes.  Custom types are displayed below the pre-defined types.  There is
no way to delete or rename pre-defined types.

This is the same for all Gramps types, not just place types.

Please open a feature request or discuss your ideas on this list.

Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

Nick Hall
In reply to this post by adrian.davey
On 31/07/15 00:08, adrian.davey wrote:

> In my case, I have always made a quite conscious decision to limit the
> proliferation of placenames unless it is actually remote from others [and of
> course remoteness is relative, and context-dependant!], or a significant
> number of records point to it with that particular name, or there is some
> other historical reason to use the name. So an esoteric long-forgotten name
> that for all practical modern purposes is subsumed within another is better
> included in the more familiar place as a note. Such place names are NOT
> necessarily alternative names for the [whole] modern place, so much as now
> enclosed by it. At the moment, the best approximation in gramps is to add
> these "included" places—but which I DO NOT want to create as a separate
> place to clog my place table—as names under "Alternative names", and/or in a
> note to the main place.
>
> But, as I have noted in feature request 0008743, the find dialog when you
> are using the places selection drop-down does NOT allow the "Alternative
> names" field to be searched, so you cannot use that mechanism even to be
> reminded that you have previously included that name within a previously
> defined place in your table. At that point, unless you remember you have
> previously included x within y, you are at risk of creating a completely
> unnecessary duplicate. It would be better that there was another field that
> literally did allow for "included" places, and that it too could be used in
> a find operation.

Yes.  The place selection dialog needs improving, but I haven't come up
with a good design yet.

There are a few new features we could consider:

1. Quite often a user doesn't know if they need to share an existing
place or add a new one.  The place selection dialog could allow adding
new places.

2. We could have a "quick add place" facility to add new places without
invoking the place editor.

3. At the moment, the place tree doesn't display the complete place
hierarchy.  How should this be improved?

4. The search should display matches after a few characters are
entered.  The hierarchy displayed could be empty to begin with.

I would welcome your ideas.  It would be good if the users could
actually describe the interface they would like to see.


Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by adrian.davey
On 07/31/2015 05:22 PM, Nick Hall wrote:

> On 31/07/15 00:08, adrian.davey wrote:
>> In my case, I have always made a quite conscious decision to limit the
>> proliferation of placenames unless it is actually remote from others [and of
>> course remoteness is relative, and context-dependant!], or a significant
>> number of records point to it with that particular name, or there is some
>> other historical reason to use the name. So an esoteric long-forgotten name
>> that for all practical modern purposes is subsumed within another is better
>> included in the more familiar place as a note. Such place names are NOT
>> necessarily alternative names for the [whole] modern place, so much as now
>> enclosed by it. At the moment, the best approximation in gramps is to add
>> these "included" places—but which I DO NOT want to create as a separate
>> place to clog my place table—as names under "Alternative names", and/or in a
>> note to the main place.
>>
>> But, as I have noted in feature request 0008743, the find dialog when you
>> are using the places selection drop-down does NOT allow the "Alternative
>> names" field to be searched, so you cannot use that mechanism even to be
>> reminded that you have previously included that name within a previously
>> defined place in your table. At that point, unless you remember you have
>> previously included x within y, you are at risk of creating a completely
>> unnecessary duplicate. It would be better that there was another field that
>> literally did allow for "included" places, and that it too could be used in
>> a find operation.
> Yes.  The place selection dialog needs improving, but I haven't come up
> with a good design yet.
>
> There are a few new features we could consider:
>
> 1. Quite often a user doesn't know if they need to share an existing
> place or add a new one.  The place selection dialog could allow adding
> new places.
>
> 2. We could have a "quick add place" facility to add new places without
> invoking the place editor.
>
> 3. At the moment, the place tree doesn't display the complete place
> hierarchy.  How should this be improved?
>
> 4. The search should display matches after a few characters are
> entered.  The hierarchy displayed could be empty to begin with.
>
> I would welcome your ideas.  It would be good if the users could
> actually describe the interface they would like to see.

I'm about to file an ER bug to have returned results that are nested
automatically open the nest instead of leaving the nest closed, requiring
the user to open it.

--
"Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a
crime to examine the laws of heat." Christopher Morley


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by adrian.davey
On 07/31/2015 05:22 PM, Nick Hall wrote:
Yes.  The place selection dialog needs improving, but I haven't come up 
with a good design yet.

There are a few new features we could consider:

1. Quite often a user doesn't know if they need to share an existing 
place or add a new one.  The place selection dialog could allow adding 
new places.

Better would be the "quick add place".
2. We could have a "quick add place" facility to add new places without 
invoking the place editor.

+1

3. At the moment, the place tree doesn't display the complete place 
hierarchy.  How should this be improved?
I just opened 8785, an ER to more easily pick -- for example -- Dallas (the city) which is nested in Dallas County.

4. The search should display matches after a few characters are 
entered.  The hierarchy displayed could be empty to begin with.

I would welcome your ideas.  It would be good if the users could 
actually describe the interface they would like to see.

This would work great for Americans who have places in foreign countries but have most of their places in the USA (which just happens to sort *after* just about every other country...):
  • Let the user define a Default Place, similar to a Home Person.
  • The Select Place window would have a Show All check box similar to what Select Person has.
  • In addition to a Show All check box, have a "move up one level" button.
  • In Select Place, the Default Place's *top* *level* nested places would be displayed (typically States in US & Mexico, Departments in France)
  • But *only* the top level places!!
  • That would let us more quickly drill down to the relevant sub-Place.
  • (Heck, if you know that every place that you're working on at that moment is in Virginia, set it as the Default Place.  Then that would just show counties and independent cities).
  • Currently there are multiple "top places".  I don't know if behind the scenes they are actually nested under "Earth", but it just not seen by the user, but that might be a useful abstraction if, for example I've highlighted USA and click the "move up one level" button.

This is where "quick add place" comes in when I've got to add Ketchikan, Alaska but this is my first use of Alaska:

  • In Select Place, right click on USA.
  • Up comes a grid-looking input window with "USA" in the top input box, but grayed out.  There are five rows (including USA), and columns for Name, Title, Type & Coordinates.
  • In the second row (just under USA), I'd type in Alaska as the Name, Alaska as the Title, and choose State as the Type.
  • In the third row, I'd type "Ketchikan Gateway" as the Name and Title, and choose Borough as the Type. (Who knew Alaska uses Boroughs instead of counties?)
  • In the fourth row, I'd type Ketchikan as the Name, "Ketchikan, AK" as the Title, and choose City as the Type.

Gramps would then create three new places, nesting Ketchikan <- "Ketchikan Gateway" <- Alaska <- USA.

Hope that makes sense!!

-- 
"Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a 
crime to examine the laws of heat." Christopher Morley

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

Nick Hall
On 01/08/15 00:33, Ron Johnson wrote:
This would work great for Americans who have places in foreign countries but have most of their places in the USA (which just happens to sort *after* just about every other country...):
  • Let the user define a Default Place, similar to a Home Person.
  • The Select Place window would have a Show All check box similar to what Select Person has.
  • In addition to a Show All check box, have a "move up one level" button.
  • In Select Place, the Default Place's *top* *level* nested places would be displayed (typically States in US & Mexico, Departments in France)
  • But *only* the top level places!!
  • That would let us more quickly drill down to the relevant sub-Place.
  • (Heck, if you know that every place that you're working on at that moment is in Virginia, set it as the Default Place.  Then that would just show counties and independent cities).
  • Currently there are multiple "top places".  I don't know if behind the scenes they are actually nested under "Earth", but it just not seen by the user, but that might be a useful abstraction if, for example I've highlighted USA and click the "move up one level" button.

I like the idea of a default place.

Multiple top level places are allowed. It would be possible to enclose "USA" by "North America" but it is not necessary.

I'm not sure that I fully understand your place selection.


This is where "quick add place" comes in when I've got to add Ketchikan, Alaska but this is my first use of Alaska:

  • In Select Place, right click on USA.
  • Up comes a grid-looking input window with "USA" in the top input box, but grayed out.  There are five rows (including USA), and columns for Name, Title, Type & Coordinates.
  • In the second row (just under USA), I'd type in Alaska as the Name, Alaska as the Title, and choose State as the Type.
  • In the third row, I'd type "Ketchikan Gateway" as the Name and Title, and choose Borough as the Type. (Who knew Alaska uses Boroughs instead of counties?)
  • In the fourth row, I'd type Ketchikan as the Name, "Ketchikan, AK" as the Title, and choose City as the Type.

Gramps would then create three new places, nesting Ketchikan <- "Ketchikan Gateway" <- Alaska <- USA.


This would be quite easy to implement.  Rather than having a fixed number of rows, I would suggest a "+" button to add a new row.


Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by Ron Johnson
On 08/01/2015 10:13 AM, Nick Hall wrote:
On 01/08/15 00:33, Ron Johnson wrote:
This would work great for Americans who have places in foreign countries but have most of their places in the USA (which just happens to sort *after* just about every other country...):
  • Let the user define a Default Place, similar to a Home Person.
  • The Select Place window would have a Show All check box similar to what Select Person has.
  • In addition to a Show All check box, have a "move up one level" button.
  • In Select Place, the Default Place's *top* *level* nested places would be displayed (typically States in US & Mexico, Departments in France)
  • But *only* the top level places!!
  • That would let us more quickly drill down to the relevant sub-Place.
  • (Heck, if you know that every place that you're working on at that moment is in Virginia, set it as the Default Place.  Then that would just show counties and independent cities).
  • Currently there are multiple "top places".  I don't know if behind the scenes they are actually nested under "Earth", but it just not seen by the user, but that might be a useful abstraction if, for example I've highlighted USA and click the "move up one level" button.

I like the idea of a default place.

Multiple top level places are allowed. It would be possible to enclose "USA" by "North America" but it is not necessary.

Right now, are *all* countries top-level places?

Wetzel County <- West Virginia <- USA
Southhampton <- Hampshire <- England
21 Dandy Row <- Clyde Tollcross <- Old Monklands <- Lanarkshire <- Scotland


I'm not sure that I fully understand your place selection.

Which part?

This is where "quick add place" comes in when I've got to add Ketchikan, Alaska but this is my first use of Alaska:

  • In Select Place, right click on USA.
  • Up comes a grid-looking input window with "USA" in the top input box, but grayed out.  There are five rows (including USA), and columns for Name, Title, Type & Coordinates.
  • In the second row (just under USA), I'd type in Alaska as the Name, Alaska as the Title, and choose State as the Type.
  • In the third row, I'd type "Ketchikan Gateway" as the Name and Title, and choose Borough as the Type. (Who knew Alaska uses Boroughs instead of counties?)
  • In the fourth row, I'd type Ketchikan as the Name, "Ketchikan, AK" as the Title, and choose City as the Type.

Gramps would then create three new places, nesting Ketchikan <- "Ketchikan Gateway" <- Alaska <- USA.


This would be quite easy to implement.  Rather than having a fixed number of rows, I would suggest a "+" button to add a new row.

As long as it's made clear to the user that places are added "enclosing to enclosed", which is *opposite* of how the current "add Enclosed By" system works.

-- 
"Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a 
crime to examine the laws of heat." Christopher Morley

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unincorporated communities and Census Designated Places

Nick Hall
On 01/08/15 19:25, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> Multiple top level places are allowed. It would be possible to
>> enclose "USA" by "North America" but it is not necessary.
>
> Right now, are *all* countries top-level places?
>
> Wetzel County <- West Virginia <- USA
> Southhampton <- Hampshire <- England
> 21 Dandy Row <- Clyde Tollcross <- Old Monklands <- Lanarkshire <-
> Scotland

If there are no entries in the "Enclosed By" tab then it is a top-level
place.

Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
12