newFamilySearch Version .92 out 3 March 2008

Discussions around Genealogy technology.
dsammy-p40
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Postby dsammy-p40 » Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:23 am

Thomas_Lerman wrote:I personally find it extremely easy to find a cemetery name within my sources for burial. The only "notes" that I use are the "comments" within my source citations.

I have a national database that shows 37 cemeteries in Salt Lake county, 21 in Utah county, etc. I did not want to spend too much time on this. Both counties have over 100 churches each. Salt Lake county has 19 hospitals and Utah county has 8.

Actually there are 39 in Salt Lake County, 31 in Utah County.

I didn't get to be Utah Tombstone Project coordinator for nothing. There are numerous cemeteries most have never heard of within their easy driving distance.

Thomas_Lerman
Member
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:54 am

Postby Thomas_Lerman » Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:52 am

In my opinion, burial has two puposes, burial date and place-name (City, County, State, Country just like other place-names). This approach works very well for me. I pretty much have no notes, only sources. To me, hospital, cemetery, church, etc. all belong in the source citation.

It would be interesting to compare cemetery lists of what you have compared to what I have.

dsammy-p40
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Utah co 31 Salt Lake 41 Davis 22

Postby dsammy-p40 » Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:49 am

Thomas_Lerman wrote:In my opinion, burial has two puposes, burial date and place-name (City, County, State, Country just like other place-names). This approach works very well for me. I pretty much have no notes, only sources. To me, hospital, cemetery, church, etc. all belong in the source citation.

It would be interesting to compare cemetery lists of what you have compared to what I have.


for me - third purpose if cemetery name is known if the town has more than 1 cemetery / columbarium / mausoleum.

You're relying on the GNIS which is not complete. I report cemeteries as soon as I locate with GPS. State of Utah has more complete listing for Utah County.

Utah County not listed in GNIS:
American Fork Pioneer Memorial
Cedar Fort (active)
Colton
Fayette City
Highland (active)
Lindon (active)
Pleasant Grove Pioneer
Provo Bench
Spanish Fork Pioneer
Spring City
Tucker (Williams Family)

Chances that you missed Huffaker Family, Miners and Utah Veterans Memorial (which was mistaken placed in Utah County until last year when I pointed the exact location) because GNIS shows 39 and I shows 41. I said Sandy has 3 cemeteries, it should be FOUR - I forgot about Lake Hill.

Thomas_Lerman
Member
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:54 am

Postby Thomas_Lerman » Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:54 am

To me, the cemetery name, like a hospital, belongs in the source citation. Very easily searched, contains address, telephone, inscription, etc.

dsammy-p40
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:18 pm

name of cemetery in note - not!

Postby dsammy-p40 » Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:15 am

Thomas_Lerman wrote:To me, the cemetery name, like a hospital, belongs in the source citation. Very easily searched, contains address, telephone, inscription, etc.


I disgree. Pint out the notes and give to somebody - you are out of luck. That person is not going to read the notes to find it. Evidently you haven't had experience in printing the books from the various programs as I have. The notes are very copious.

Thomas_Lerman
Member
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:54 am

Postby Thomas_Lerman » Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:20 am

They are in my sources, not in notes. Yes, I have had experience with many of those things. However, we obviously have two different methods. Differences are not bad, just different and that is okay. For me, this is a personal thing to have consistency throughout the database.

jbh001
Community Moderators
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Postby jbh001 » Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:09 am

I prefer listing the cemetery in the place name instead of notes or sources because it simplifies many things (among them notes and sources).

Salt Lake City Cemetery, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake, Utah
Mount Olivet Cemetery, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake, Utah
Riverview Cemetery, Tremonton, Box Elder, Utah


Alternately, I have incorporated the name of the city into the cemetery name.

Salt Lake City Cemetery, Salt Lake, Utah
Salt Lake City Mount Olivet Cemetery, Salt Lake, Utah
Tremonton Riverview Cemetery, Box Elder, Utah


But I prefer the first solution because it think it is clearer and more consistent especially in those cases where a person wasn't buried in a cemetery, or the location of the cemetery is not known.

El Dorado, Salt Lake, Utah

jbh001
Community Moderators
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Postby jbh001 » Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:24 am

Thomas_Lerman wrote:I have heard rumor about cemetery names being allowed in place-names. I would hope we would not go down that road. If cemetery names are allowed for burial . . . Why not hospitals for birth or death? What about churches for marriages? What about nursing homes for death? Oh yes, some are born at home with a midwife so addresses too! And what about those that got married in their backyard or a park, should addresses be valid too? Okay, so I am being a little facetious!
Why allow cemeteries as a place and not the others? Because cemeteries don't usually get demolished and relocated like hospitals, houses, and nursing homes do.

Churches are also more permanent than hospitals are and can also be repositories for records.

For example, my wife has an ancestor whose birthplace is listed variously as:

Zofingen, Aargau, Switzerland
Staffelbach, Aargau, Switzerland
Schöftland, Aargau, Switzerland


It turns out (pending research to the contrary) that this person was born in Zofingen, but was christened in the Staffelbach church (parish/village/borough/hamlet) in the nearby town of Schöftland. Therefore I have listed their birthplace as

Zofingen, Aargau, Switzerland

and their christening place as

Staffelbach, Schöftland, Aargau, Switzerland

I think this is the least confusing way of presenting the information that also requires the least amount of notes and sources. Anyone wanting to verify the information can see concisely where they need to begin to verify the information.

Edit:
Of course, now that I can look at this in Google Maps, I think it might be more likely the church is in
Schöftland instead of Staffelbach (the mother left Zofingen to give birth). So I might need to update the listing to

Schöftland,Staffelbach, Aargau, Switzerland
[font=Verdana]
Now what was that point I was making about clarity and conciseness? :rolleyes:

[/font]

User avatar
garysturn
Senior Member
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Draper, Utah, USA
Contact:

Cemeteries

Postby garysturn » Thu Apr 10, 2008 7:40 am

I do not have an opinion either way, I can see both sides of the question about including cemeteries in the place name or in the sources or notes. In nFS the current method of showing notes and sources as just a big list of notes or sources would make showing them in the sources or notes not very effective. Most of the sources listed are just a bunch of automated data that means nothing anyway. I have submitted feedback to nFS recommending that the notes and sources need to be connected to the data they represent instead of just a list of all notes that are combined into the folder. You have no Idea which sources apply to which dates, names or places. Most folders contain several different birth dates, but all the notes and sources are listed together and are not linked to the dates they apply to, so they are not very useful. I am hoping that a future release will allow us to have notes and sources linked directly to a date or place name and if that were available a cemetery note could be linked directly to the burial place name. The other option is to allow non standard place names in the Burial place field so cemetery names can be included.
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new
Code of Conduct

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 28799
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:54 pm

One of the issues that probably needs to be addressed is how the different program parse the place name. While city/county/state/country works fine in the United States, the 4-level setup doesn't always work world-wide.

Some programs, such as PAF Insight parse the place name from the right. It expects to see either the country (or the state) name there and doesn't really care about how many levels there are. I'm not sure how nFS does it, but with it's standardized place finder, I imagine that putting the cemetery name in the place name could mess things up.

It would be nice to put the cemetery name in because you can visit and see the headstone. Knowing what hospital someone was born or died in isn't very useful - that I know of. More important is what city/county to find the records.


Return to “Family History”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest