questions about Place hierarchies

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
65 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

questions about Place hierarchies

Douglas Bainbridge
Hi,
I'd be grateful for advice on dealing with intertwined place
hierarchies.
To give a simple example that's puzzling me:

Blaydon and Gateshead were towns in County Durham, UK, until
1974.
After local government re-organisation, Blaydon became a
town, Gateshead a metropolitan borough, in the county of
Tyne and Wear. County Durham has been eliminated. Blaydon
has been subsumed under Gateshead.

That is,
Pre-1974:
Blaydon (town) => enclosed by County Durham
Gateshead (town) => enclosed by County Durham

post-1974:
Blaydon (town) => enclosed by Gateshead (borough) =>
enclosed by Tyne and Wear

I'm not sure how this should be recorded.
Do I put all the Blaydon entries and subtrees, and all the
Gateshead town entries and subtrees under my County Durham
county tree, just adding "enclosed by Tyne and Wear" to
Blaydon and Gateshead? Then the County Durham tree is nice
and simple.

But how does that show Blaydon as subordinate to Gateshead
in T&W?

And what should the T&W county tree view look like? Should
places like Blaydon and Gateshead be entered in this tree as
well? If they are, how can one see that they are in County
Durham? If not, how can one see that Blaydon and Gateshead
also form part of tree?

I'd welcome comments, because I have a lot of similar
problems, even more tricky.

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=267308311&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: questions about Place hierarchies

Brad Rogers
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 15:32:45 +0000
Douglas Bainbridge <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello Douglas,

>I'd welcome comments, because I have a lot of similar
>problems, even more tricky.

Use the date field;  'before', 'between' and 'after' all respected.  So,
Blaydon can be enclosed by two, three, or more, places.  Each with an
associated date range, of course.  The correct enclosing place will be
used for any event etc. that occurs in Blaydon.  So.....

Blaydon is enclosed by
  Co. Durham (before 1 Jan 1974)
  and
  Gateshead (after 31 Dec 1973)

Gateshead is enclosed by
  Co. Durham (before 1 Jan 1974)
  and
  Tyne & Wear (after 31 Dec 1973)

Assuming I've understood your description correctly, of course.

--
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
It's becoming an obsession
Teenage Depression - Eddie & The Hot Rods

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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=267308311&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
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: questions about Place hierarchies

Douglas Bainbridge
On 30/01/16 16:22, Brad Rogers wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 15:32:45 +0000
> Douglas Bainbridge <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hello Douglas,
>
>> I'd welcome comments, because I have a lot of similar
>> problems, even more tricky.
> Use the date field;  'before', 'between' and 'after' all respected.  So,
> Blaydon can be enclosed by two, three, or more, places.  Each with an
> associated date range, of course.  The correct enclosing place will be
> used for any event etc. that occurs in Blaydon.  So.....
>
> Blaydon is enclosed by
>    Co. Durham (before 1 Jan 1974)
>    and
>    Gateshead (after 31 Dec 1973)
>
> Gateshead is enclosed by
>    Co. Durham (before 1 Jan 1974)
>    and
>    Tyne & Wear (after 31 Dec 1973)
>
> Assuming I've understood your description correctly, of course.
>
Brad, thanks for your post.
It's not the <enclosing> clauses that bother me; it's the
trees dependent from County Durham and Tyne & Wear that you
will see when you use   Place Tree.

(1) should I be entering Blaydon and Gateshead twice, once
in the County Durham tree and once in the Tyne & Wear tree,
so that I can *see* that Blaydon and Gateshead form part of
both trees? If not, I think they'll be missing from one tree
or the other.
(2) if not, how can I *see* that Blaydon and Gateshead are
at the same level in one tree, but Blaydon is subordinate in
the other tree?

Sorry I didn't make my query clearer - it probably isn't
much better now :(

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=267308311&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: questions about Place hierarchies

Brad Rogers
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 11:33:23 +0000
Douglas Bainbridge <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello Douglas,

>(1) should I be entering Blaydon and Gateshead twice, once
>in the County Durham tree and once in the Tyne & Wear tree,
>so that I can *see* that Blaydon and Gateshead form part of
>both trees? If not, I think they'll be missing from one tree
>or the other.

Yes, it will.  However, if you want to see Blaydon in both trees, you'll
have to create two places with that name, as you imply above.  Neither
situation is ideal I know, but I opt for having only the one place and
not being able to see it in other part(s) of the tree view.

>Sorry I didn't make my query clearer - it probably isn't
>much better now :(

Actually, it is, to me.  I think I've been able to give a more pertinent
response.  Whether it helps you or not, is another matter entirely.  :-)

--
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
A friend of a friend he got beaten
I Predict A Riot - Kaiser Chiefs

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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=267308311&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
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: questions about Place hierarchies

Philippe Couka
Hi

I think it's not a good idea to transcribe places' history in Gramps (or any other software): places can change, going from parish to town (religious place to civilian place), split into 2 places, recombine with other places, have their name and geographical organisation change also...

It's far too hard to describe, and i, my opinion isn't important.

I just take in account the original place with its original parameters, and integrate it in today's arborescence, the point being making easy to identify the place and to recover archives.

Best regards

Philippe Couka

2016-01-31 13:04 GMT+01:00 Brad Rogers <[hidden email]>:
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 11:33:23 +0000
Douglas Bainbridge <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello Douglas,

>(1) should I be entering Blaydon and Gateshead twice, once
>in the County Durham tree and once in the Tyne & Wear tree,
>so that I can *see* that Blaydon and Gateshead form part of
>both trees? If not, I think they'll be missing from one tree
>or the other.

Yes, it will.  However, if you want to see Blaydon in both trees, you'll
have to create two places with that name, as you imply above.  Neither
situation is ideal I know, but I opt for having only the one place and
not being able to see it in other part(s) of the tree view.

>Sorry I didn't make my query clearer - it probably isn't
>much better now :(

Actually, it is, to me.  I think I've been able to give a more pertinent
response.  Whether it helps you or not, is another matter entirely.  :-)

--
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
A friend of a friend he got beaten
I Predict A Riot - Kaiser Chiefs

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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=267308311&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=267308311&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: questions about Place hierarchies

enno
In reply to this post by Douglas Bainbridge
Hi Doug,
> It's not the <enclosing> clauses that bother me; it's the
> trees dependent from County Durham and Tyne & Wear that you
> will see when you use   Place Tree.
>
> (1) should I be entering Blaydon and Gateshead twice, once
> in the County Durham tree and once in the Tyne & Wear tree,
> so that I can *see* that Blaydon and Gateshead form part of
> both trees? If not, I think they'll be missing from one tree
> or the other.
No. You may need two entries if a location is a town in one era, and a
borough later, but if's a town under two (or more) counties, one entry
is enough.
> (2) if not, how can I *see* that Blaydon and Gateshead are
> at the same level in one tree, but Blaydon is subordinate in
> the other tree?
At the moment, you can't see it in the tree view, but you will see it if
you edit or select the enclosing county. You can then see all enclosed
items in the references tab.

I remember that the subject was discussed earlier, but maybe that was on
the developers list. At that time I suggested that we could also show
the hierarchy in reverse, so that a town appears on one line, and the
expanded view shows all enclosing counties, provinces, whatever they're
called. Towns will then appear more times if they really are different
and you do create more than one, like Harlingen, Friesland, Nederland,
and Harlings, TX, USA.

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=267308311&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: questions about Place hierarchies

Nick Hall
On 31/01/16 17:25, Enno Borgsteede wrote:
(2) if not, how can I *see* that Blaydon and Gateshead are
> at the same level in one tree, but Blaydon is subordinate in
> the other tree?
At the moment, you can't see it in the tree view, but you will see it if 
you edit or select the enclosing county. You can then see all enclosed 
items in the references tab.

I remember that the subject was discussed earlier, but maybe that was on 
the developers list. At that time I suggested that we could also show 
the hierarchy in reverse, so that a town appears on one line, and the 
expanded view shows all enclosing counties, provinces, whatever they're 
called. Towns will then appear more times if they really are different 
and you do create more than one, like Harlingen, Friesland, Nederland, 
and Harlings, TX, USA.

There is a feature request:

7943: Place tree view: show every hierarchy possibility
https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=7943

It could possibly be considered a bug.

Does anyone have any ideas how to fix this?


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=267308311&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: questions about Place hierarchies

Nick Hall
In reply to this post by Douglas Bainbridge
On 31/01/16 11:33, Douglas Bainbridge wrote:
(1) should I be entering Blaydon and Gateshead twice, once 
in the County Durham tree and once in the Tyne & Wear tree, 
so that I can *see* that Blaydon and Gateshead form part of 
both trees? If not, I think they'll be missing from one tree 
or the other.

No.  Create a single place object for each location.

However, it is possible for a region and a town within it to have the same name.


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=267308311&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: questions about Place hierarchies

Douglas Bainbridge
On 31/01/16 17:44, Nick Hall wrote:
On 31/01/16 11:33, Douglas Bainbridge wrote:
(1) should I be entering Blaydon and Gateshead twice, once 
in the County Durham tree and once in the Tyne & Wear tree, 
so that I can *see* that Blaydon and Gateshead form part of 
both trees? If not, I think they'll be missing from one tree 
or the other.

No.  Create a single place object for each location.

However, it is possible for a region and a town within it to have the same name.


Nick.
Thanks to all for your helpful remarks.

Nick, am I then understanding correctly if I enter things as follows?:

Tye & Wear <= Gateshead (borough)<= Gateshead (town) - enclosed by Gateshead (borough) & enclosed by Count Durham
                                                           <=Blaydon (town) - enclosed by Gateshead (borough) & enclosed by Count Durham
County Durham omits Gateshead and Blaydon altogether and relies on editing to make them visible (at least until and if the feature request is implemented)

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=267308311&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: questions about Place hierarchies

paul womack
In reply to this post by Philippe Couka
Philippe Couka wrote:
> Hi
>
> I think it's not a good idea to transcribe places' history in Gramps (or any other software): places can change, going from parish to town (religious place to civilian place), split into 2 places, recombine with other places, have their name and geographical organisation change also...
>
> It's far too hard to describe, and i, my opinion isn't important.

I disagree; for example, if an extended family lived in a street for a couple of generations,
they're likely to have occupied multiple houses. The street (Place) is the best point in the DB
against which to record the shared history, photographs etc.

   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=267308311&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: questions about Place hierarchies

Alain AUPEIX
Le 01/02/2016 10:15, paul womack a écrit :
Philippe Couka wrote:
It's far too hard to describe, and i, my opinion isn't important.
I disagree; for example, if an extended family lived in a street for a couple of generations,
they're likely to have occupied multiple houses. The street (Place) is the best point in the DB
against which to record the shared history, photographs etc.
Hum ... I think too that it's not important
For my case, my family lived in the campaign, there were no street, no number, houses often don't exist anymore, and there were no census, so ...

The only thing is for me to be able to localize the villages inside a commune. That's important, but enough, and be more precise is often a pure speculation.

A+
--

Alain Aupeix
http://jujuland.pagesperso-orange.fr/
http://pissobi-lacassagne.pagesperso-orange.fr/

U.buntu 12.04 | G.ramps 3.4.9-1 | H.arbour 3.2.0dev (2016-01-28 23:33) | Hw.Gui 2.19-5 (2524)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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=267308311&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: questions about Place hierarchies

paul womack
Alain Aupeix wrote:

> Le 01/02/2016 10:15, paul womack a écrit :
>> Philippe Couka wrote:
>>> It's far too hard to describe, and i, my opinion isn't important.
>> I disagree; for example, if an extended family lived in a street for a couple of generations,
>> they're likely to have occupied multiple houses. The street (Place) is the best point in the DB
>> against which to record the shared history, photographs etc.
> Hum ... I think too that it's not important
> For my case, my family lived in the campaign, there were no street, no number, houses often don't exist anymore, and there were no census, so ...
>
> The only thing is for me to be able to localize the villages inside a commune. That's important, but enough, and be more precise is often a pure speculation.

Where would you put information about the types of crops grown at the time in the area,
or what the socio-political organisation was, what trades were common...

These all logical are best recorded against a Place. *Which*
place is a different question.

  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=267308311&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: questions about Place hierarchies

Douglas Bainbridge
In reply to this post by Douglas Bainbridge
Can I bring the discussion back to my original query?

On 31/01/16 17:44, Nick Hall wrote:
On 31/01/16 11:33, Douglas Bainbridge wrote:
(1) should I be entering Blaydon and Gateshead twice, once 
in the County Durham tree and once in the Tyne & Wear tree, 
so that I can *see* that Blaydon and Gateshead form part of 
both trees? If not, I think they'll be missing from one tree 
or the other.

No.  Create a single place object for each location.

However, it is possible for a region and a town within it to have the same name.


Nick.
<snip>

Nick, am I understanding correctly if I enter things as follows?:

Tye & Wear -- Gateshead (borough) -- Gateshead (town): also enclosed by County Durham

Tye & Wear -- Gateshead (borough) -- Blaydon (town): also enclosed by County Durham


County Durham has nothing about Gateshead and Blaydon.

I'd like to get this question sorted out before trying to tackle more complicated ones.
Thanks,

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=267308311&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users

Attached Message Part (566 bytes) Download Attachment
Attached Message Part (230 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: questions about Place hierarchies

Nick Hall
On 01/02/16 13:05, Douglas Bainbridge wrote:

> Nick, am I understanding correctly if I enter things as follows?:
>
> Tye & Wear -- Gateshead (borough) -- Gateshead (town): also enclosed
> by County Durham
>
> Tye & Wear -- Gateshead (borough) -- Blaydon (town): also enclosed by
> County Durham
>
>
> County Durham has nothing about Gateshead and Blaydon.

Yes.  After 1974, Gateshead and Blaydon were in the metropolitan borough
of Gateshead which is in the metropolitan county of Tyne & Wear.  Before
1974, the towns were in County Durham.  Was there also a borough level?

The place tree view and place selector are limited to show each place
only once.  However the place will be displayed correctly in other parts
of Gramps.

We would welcome ideas for enhancing either the place tree view or place
selector.


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=267308311&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: questions about Place hierarchies

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by Douglas Bainbridge
On 02/01/2016 12:19 PM, Nick Hall wrote:
On 01/02/16 13:05, Douglas Bainbridge wrote:
Nick, am I understanding correctly if I enter things as follows?:

Tye & Wear -- Gateshead (borough) -- Gateshead (town): also enclosed 
by County Durham

Tye & Wear -- Gateshead (borough) -- Blaydon (town): also enclosed by 
County Durham


County Durham has nothing about Gateshead and Blaydon.
Yes.  After 1974, Gateshead and Blaydon were in the metropolitan borough 
of Gateshead which is in the metropolitan county of Tyne & Wear.  Before 
1974, the towns were in County Durham.  Was there also a borough level?

The place tree view and place selector are limited to show each place 
only once.  However the place will be displayed correctly in other parts 
of Gramps.

We would welcome ideas for enhancing either the place tree view or place 
selector.

A better idea would be to build a time machine, go back to 1971 and kill everyone who was involved in the UK's constant administrative shuffling.

-- 
"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=267308311&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: questions about Place hierarchies

Douglas Bainbridge
On 01/02/16 18:59, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/01/2016 12:19 PM, Nick Hall wrote:
On 01/02/16 13:05, Douglas Bainbridge wrote:
Nick, am I understanding correctly if I enter things as follows?:

Tye & Wear -- Gateshead (borough) -- Gateshead (town): also enclosed 
by County Durham

Tye & Wear -- Gateshead (borough) -- Blaydon (town): also enclosed by 
County Durham


County Durham has nothing about Gateshead and Blaydon.
Yes.  After 1974, Gateshead and Blaydon were in the metropolitan borough 
of Gateshead which is in the metropolitan county of Tyne & Wear.  Before 
1974, the towns were in County Durham.  Was there also a borough level?

The place tree view and place selector are limited to show each place 
only once.  However the place will be displayed correctly in other parts 
of Gramps.

We would welcome ideas for enhancing either the place tree view or place 
selector.

A better idea would be to build a time machine, go back to 1971 and kill everyone who was involved in the UK's constant administrative shuffling.

I'll second that :)

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=267308311&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: questions about Place hierarchies

jerome
In reply to this post by Douglas Bainbridge

--------------------------------------------
En date de : Mar 2.2.16, Douglas Bainbridge <[hidden email]> a écrit :

 > "A better idea would be to build a time machine, go
 back to 1971 and kill everyone who was involved in the UK's
 constant administrative shuffling."

Note, at a glance, it raises some problems.
First, you will be a murderer and maybe the worst issue:
in 1971 you will loose your genealogical work!

And why to kill?
Just need to show what will go wrong and fix it.
The best way is maybe to push them into 2016?

Anyway, please, make a feature request ...

Also, maybe you need to go back further on some countries.
i.e. Flurbereinigung, First French Empire, etc ...


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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=267308311&iu=/4140
 -----La pièce jointe associée suit-----
 
 _______________________________________________
 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=267308311&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: questions about Place hierarchies

Douglas Bainbridge
In reply to this post by Nick Hall
On 01/02/16 18:19, Nick Hall wrote:

> On 01/02/16 13:05, Douglas Bainbridge wrote:
>> Nick, am I understanding correctly if I enter things as follows?:
>>
>> Tye & Wear -- Gateshead (borough) -- Gateshead (town): also enclosed
>> by County Durham
>>
>> Tye & Wear -- Gateshead (borough) -- Blaydon (town): also enclosed by
>> County Durham
>>
>>
>> County Durham has nothing about Gateshead and Blaydon.
> Yes.  After 1974, Gateshead and Blaydon were in the metropolitan borough
> of Gateshead which is in the metropolitan county of Tyne & Wear.  Before
> 1974, the towns were in County Durham.  Was there also a borough level?
>
> The place tree view and place selector are limited to show each place
> only once.  However the place will be displayed correctly in other parts
> of Gramps.
>
> We would welcome ideas for enhancing either the place tree view or place
> selector.
>
>
> Nick.
>
For me, a large problem with the current Place Tree is that
used properly there's no way of seeing that a place belongs
in more than one tree.

A suggestion off the top of my head:

It would help, I think, if there was an informative marker
of some sort placed in any tree where a place "ought" to be
but isn't because it's recorded elsewhere.
The marker ought at least to carry the name of the place.
(1) it might show the name of the tree where the place is
actually recorded; or preferably
(2) it would be a link to the actual record tree; and
clicking on the link would take you there.

This would allow one to keep a single record for each place.
It might also help with trees that don't just branch but
also cross and fuse.

No doubt there are many obvious objections I'm just overlooking!

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=267308311&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: questions about Place hierarchies

Douglas Bainbridge
In reply to this post by jerome
On 02/02/16 11:54, jerome wrote:
> --------------------------------------------
> En date de : Mar 2.2.16, Douglas Bainbridge <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
>   > "A better idea would be to build a time machine, go
>   back to 1971 and kill everyone who was involved in the UK's
>   constant administrative shuffling."
<deliberate snip>
> Anyway, please, make a feature request ...
>
Are we extending the remit of the feature request?

[Sorry, I couldn't resist it]

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=267308311&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: questions about Place hierarchies

Philippe Couka
In reply to this post by jerome
... and please don't kill an ancestor of mine, for obvious birth reason...

Philippe Couka[hidden email]

2016-02-02 12:54 GMT+01:00 jerome <[hidden email]>:

--------------------------------------------
En date de : Mar 2.2.16, Douglas Bainbridge <[hidden email]> a écrit :

 > "A better idea would be to build a time machine, go
 back to 1971 and kill everyone who was involved in the UK's
 constant administrative shuffling."

Note, at a glance, it raises some problems.
First, you will be a murderer and maybe the worst issue:
in 1971 you will loose your genealogical work!

And why to kill?
Just need to show what will go wrong and fix it.
The best way is maybe to push them into 2016?

Anyway, please, make a feature request ...

Also, maybe you need to go back further on some countries.
i.e. Flurbereinigung, First French Empire, etc ...



 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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=267308311&iu=/4140
 -----La pièce jointe associée suit-----

 _______________________________________________
 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=267308311&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=267308311&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
1234