TMG-L ArchivesArchiver > TMG > 2004-12 > 1103238219
From: Robin Lamacraft <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Place Styles
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:33:40 +1030
I have toyed with a number of styles for UK and Australia.
But I have found that you need to be very wary of trying to build
(1) a universal style for one country and for all uses in that country. The
postal system has changed over time, boundaries have changed and the same
place can be referred to by a number of different hierarchies, e.g. postal,
census, church, bdm registration, land title, voting, etc. So a Place Style
should be qualified for country/date/type of place to be entered.
(2) a style that keeps like things in like positions over all places (so
that filtering on places in reports gives you all that you expect). So it
is better to keep Country/State/County in the places that will be
comparable over all styles - beware of County US / County UK. You get into
confusion where to put Parish (for instance) so that filtering works as you
would expect. Where do enter the name of a Scottish island (e.g. Lewis)
that has a number of postal districts on it?
(3) For many styles, you will need to sequence the data for several levels
within one element. UK village name and postal town name are items that
probably in the City field. This leads to filter headaches. The descriptive
UK and Australian rural postal addresses sometimes need to have the
equivalent of 3 lines of address in the Details field.
It would be all much easier to get consistency for filtering purposes if :
- there were a few more place elements ( between the existing ones)
- other fields like Addressee, City, County and State were sub-divided as
is the Detail field, and that these sub-fields could be extracted
individually in Filters and Output Templates.
At 22:30 16/12/2004 +0000, Alan wrote:
>Has anyone got place style definitions for any of the following countries:
Robin Lamacraft (Adelaide, Australia)