TMG-L ArchivesArchiver > TMG > 2000-09 > 0970191970
From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: [TMG] Place Levels and "villages"
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 20:46:10 -0500
At 03:33 PM 09/28/2000 -0400, Allen Mellen wrote:
>Many of us have entered British counties in the state field, since they
>seem logically to be Level 6 places rather than Level 5 (to use the new
>terms available in TMG v4.0a)
Allen's comment is an opportune excuse to raise an issue that had a rather significant thread a week or three ago. I'm looking for users' opinions, "on further review," now. I am specifically interested in the implications of PLACE LEVEL.
My place import went rather well, and I have even managed to avoid the short place name bug. One exception is that I am not at all comfortable with how my extra-level places ended up. Specifically, in New England, most original vital records are kept at the town level; the county is interesting only for probate. But village names are important, however, even if not incorporated; for example, the census will often consider a village to be a "place" for its purposes. Here is an example of an actual place, of a type common to my database and New England in general:
Gowdy Invalid Home, Saxtons River, Windham County, Vermont short: Saxtons River, VT
I do not fill in the country field for U.S.A. locations. In my place cleanup, as an interim step, I have put "Gowdy Invalid Home" in [Detail] where to my way of thinking it belongs. In UFT, the detail is not part of the place at all but part of the Event (translation, Tag <grin>) record. In TMG it's part of the place, but inadequate provision seems to have been made for it as a "level."
Anyway, I left the town, county, and state in the "proper" columns. So for the moment, the poor village ends up in [Addressee]. Hmmmm. What are others (not just UFT refugees) doing with similar data?
Darrell A. Martin
no longer proud to have been a Vermonter
but still proud of my Vermont roots
currently in exile in Addison, Illinois