Denmark Locations Suggestion Needed
Posted 24 August 2013 - 09:43 PM
I need a suggestion from those who use RM while doing Danish research.
As I have learned new Danish research techniques, I have found that most searches like to have the Amt (County), Herred (District) and Søgn (Parish) information. Bunt once you have entered that information and get some results, you have one further location that translates to "Place Name". As I understand it this place is like a neighborhood or modern subdivision. This information is usually missing in research that had been done before, but is vitally important as it is very helpful when verifying that you are looking at the correct person. Many records mention the (person name) from (place name).
My question is, would this place name be better located in the "Place" field or "Place Detail" field? It is most likely a matter of personal preference, but I am curious as to what others do.
Posted 25 August 2013 - 01:58 AM
I am sure many countries have similar problems and users need to decide on a suitable solution so it's not particular to Denmark.
I try (as far as possible) to keep the Place field recorded as something which will be recognized by the Gazetteer and mapping, the one notable exception in my Irish research is Old Parishes which I record as Places and geocode manually.
Maybe showing some similarity to Denmark the Irish Land Divisions have a further division of the Parish into what are called Townlands, these can be as small as a few acres or several thousand acres. Similar to your example historically families and people would have been noted in connection with that Townland on civil registrations and also known that way locally, I note these Townlands as Place Details.
The reason I decided to note these as Place Details is that in non City Places the Townland was the most exact notation of where someone was from, there was no more detailed description recorded.
My one frustration with RM at present is some lack of reporting for Place Details including the associated events Print functionality and also accurate inclusion in proximity reporting but I remain hopeful this will be overcome in the future. The upside of Place Details is that they allow the detail of Geocoding, Media and Notes attachments to enhance your database for the day when reporting becomes more rich.
I would advise thinking through any decision thoroughly so you won't regret it in the future, as I have said the current short comings of Place Details should, hopefully, be overcome in the not too distant future, especially if users keep requesting enhancements.
Hope this is some help in your decision making process.
Edit: Oh and maybe have a read here http://www.vyger.co.uk/mapping.html
Keeping ones customers and their important views at a distance is never a good approach
User of Family Historian 7.0, Rootsmagic 7.6.3
Posted 25 August 2013 - 06:58 PM
Of course wars are not real places. But it works. It is rare to find an obit listing unit designation or dates of service. However, there are obits with military unit designations or navy ships.
I have places such as "Civil War 149th Ohio Volunteer Infantry" and "WWII". It is possible to populate the place note with the Civil War unit history available from the NPS website. Of course I know that these entries are not real places. With some Internet searching, some WWII unit histories are available.
In particular, Civil War units tended to have relatives serving together. A RM place report for a specific unit will then show everyone serving in this unit.
It would be nice to have an additional appendix for narrative reports with the text for place notes for any place referenced in the body of the report. This should be an option.
Posted 25 August 2013 - 08:10 PM
Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:36 PM
I cheat using the place list for military service.
I do the same sometimes. I sometimes have a sentence in a narrative report read something like "He died in WWI." or "He died in the Civil War.".
Sometimes you can come up withe more detailed information that that, and sometimes you can't. And I struggle with what goes in the Place or Place Details vs. what goes in the note. For example, I have a fact sentence that reads "He died on 6 Aug 1864 at the age of 20 at Utio Creek near Atlanta, Georgia." and then a fact note that goes with it that reads "He served in Company E 8th Tennessee Infantry (Union) in the Civil War. He enlisted 1 Mar 1863, mustered in 11 Aug 1863, and died in battle 6 Aug 1864.". The note goes on to say that he was serving in Sherman's army during the Atlanta campaign.
There's obviously a redundancy with the date of death appearing twice. Maybe I just need to leave off the second "6 Aug 1864". But I think it's important to record when the information is available whether a soldier died of disease or of wounds, and in either case if it was immediate or if it was some time later. For example, I have an example of a Union soldier who was captured on 12 Sep 1864 and taken to a Confederate prison camp in Richmond. He was still alive at the end of the war but couldn't get home on his own because of extremely ill health from the harsh winter of 1865 and from harsh conditions in the prison camp. His father and his brother went to Richmond and brought him home to Tennessee, and he died back at home on 16 Jun 1865 a couple of months after the war was over. So striclty speaking he didn't die in the Civil war and the family oral tradition that he froze to death in the Civil War isn't quite right, but it might as well be. I think these things are really hard to document just right, even when you have the appropriate documentation in hand. And if you don't have any place information, just the name of war, it's hard to think of a better "place" than the name of the war.
Posted 26 August 2013 - 02:46 PM