From: Dianne R. <pra...@ya...> - 2010-05-02 15:00:04
|
On Sat, 2010-05-01 at 21:50 +0200, Duncan Lithgow wrote: > My reasoning > is along these lines: all places should have long/lat information, so > that solves the most obvious problem of locating the place on a map. I > have been recording places as their current name, but as so rightly > was pointed out - that is likely to change yet again just as it's > changed before. So the places current name will need to be a comment. > > Cheers, Duncan > That's something I hadn't considered doing - I thought that Tony had the right idea, but the thought of researching when places actually changed their names was a bit daunting. On the other hand, the long/lat won't change, and may be easier to look up than county boundary changes. Decisions, decisions ... Dianne |