Therefore all "Place" information includes all "nodes" (country, city, state, address, church name are nodes) with the leftmost or lowest order location the most detailed location of a place.
As a computer and information specialist, database designer and Library profession I have a lot of background in data design and cataloging and I'm currently associated with genealogy centers both in the US and Norway.
Again I'm just curious where my work is not fitting in with others since my experience guides me in what I advocate.
KFN, I also would not want you to feel unwelcome in this discussion but my interest is uneccessary duplication, with your involvements stated above I would think you would appreciate the needs for standards to be applied rather that every persons preference. Adding a Church to the Place is another component open to every users preference, 1st Presbyterian, First Presbyterian, Newmills 1st Presbyterian etc, all unique entries and not matches so unwelcome.
In the example used in this thread Merrimack, Hillsborough, New Hampshire, United States is the Place there is no question about that, Thorntons Ferry or Thornton's Ferry, another two distinctly different entries, describe a locality within that Place and are not recognized by online mapping utilities as a Place with a definable boundary. There are a number of old localities referred to in Belfast but they are difficult to research except for roughly where ther were located, if I had a street address in Place Details I might add "This address was in the area known as 'The Bone' in North Belfast"
My view on some other statements is that the commas are important and users should worl to fill any blank components. In Ireland I have Antrim, Ireland which refers to a county, and Antrim, Antrim, Ireland which refers to the town of Antrim within that said county.
Reports have also been mentioned and every user has their preference of reported format and that is fine, I repeat that the Standardized Place Name (where populated) should be the Place data shared with FS, Ancestry and others, not the users preferred entry style. For the purposes of genealogy exchange and data matching, again using this threads example, Merrimack, Hillsborough, New Hampshire, United States is perfect, additional information of differing standards just make the data convoluted.
Format discussions always centre around how the user wants the Place to appear in reports and rightly so, but Rootsmagic has 3 Place fields and if improvemetns were necessary then selecting how those Place fields were used might be the step forward desired. Sharing the Standardized Place Name (where populated) is the standard I believe needed for sharing so your data looks like and matches my data in terms of Places leaving you and I free to enter whatever format we wish into the Place field and Abbreviated Place Field, everybody happy.
Oh, I should reiterate my belief that County Check suggestions should give the option to populate the Standardized Place Name and not the users choice and style of Place entry.