TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2000-11 > 0973157221


From: Robin Lamacraft <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] England places
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 19:57:01 +1030
In-Reply-To: <ce.c74717d.272fb000@aol.com>


At 00:17 31/10/00 -0500, Kayelache wrote:
>I echo your confusion! In England, there is the parish, the town or village,
>the shire. Sometimes the parish is larger than the village (several hamlets
>may be within a parish) and sometimes the town or city may have several
>parishes. London has dozens, for instance. I'm not sure what to put in what
>blank. In places like New York, USA, the same thing happens, when there are
>several "hamlets" or villages within a "town" such as Norton Hill,
>Greenville, Greene County, New York. The Norton hill goes in the detail
>space. In English records, would you do the same with the Parish, or would
>you put the village there?

Yet another example of why the current set of place element labels *needs*
to be related to the culture of the *origin* of the data on a
record-by-record basis. At last, Americans are seeing genealogy as
crossing the Atlantic and some of them are seeing the problems of fitting
"square pegs in round holes".

Robin


Robin Ross Lamacraft ()
Coordinator of the Adelaide, South Australia TMG Users Group
www.sceya.com.au/tmg/adelaide.htm
Member of Guild of One-Name Studies www.one-name.org
Study #3019 - LAMACRAFT
Ph: +61 8 8379 1833 Fax: +61 8 8338 5252

This thread: