England Locations In Genealogy

[F1fan]

Hi,

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I cannot find anything.

When entering the location of someones Birth, Marriage, Death, where they lived or other event in England is it best to use a 3 place naming system or a 4?

An example being if someone is born in Maidstone it would be :-

Maidstone, Kent, England ( Only 3 places )

But if they where born on the outskirts ( Park Wood ) this would be :-

Park Wood, Maidstone, Kent, England ( 4 places available ) or there is also a Park Wood in Gillingham, Kent and this would be defined as

Park Wood, Gillingham, Kent, England ( 4 places )   

If I use the 4, would I just enter the first example as :-

, Maidstone, Kent, England 

Any help or advice would be very much appreciated   

[lizdb]

Where are you "entering the location"?

If in your own records, then put whatever suits you best.  I would record all that is known so if you have a birth cert confirming they were born in Park Wood, MAidstine, Kent then I would make sure I had recorded all that in my records.

If in a search facilitiy on a site whilst looking for records, then minimal info is usually best - then you stand more chance of picking up possibiliites even if the entry is not exactly as you have entered. If someone was actually born in Park Wood, Maidstone , they may have said on a census that their birthplace was just Maidstone, or just Kent. Or even just Park Wood and then the enumerator or the person transcribing and indexing the entry later made the mistake of assuming it was a different Park Wood.  Or they may have been brought up in another village and put that down as their birthplace, thus a search with PArk Wood would not find them! 

[F1fan]

Where are you "entering the location"?

If in your own records, then put whatever suits you best.

If in a search facilitiy on a site whilst looking for records, then minimal info is usually best - then you stand more chance of picking up possibiliites even if the entry is not exactly as you have entered.

Sorry, should have been a bit clearer on that 

I'm entering the locations in Genealogy software and want to be consistent with all the entries 

[Ruskie]

If you have the full address, enter that, otherwise enter the address as you find it on the specific document. Depending on era and location, addresses can vary in length anyway.

Using your example there may be occasions where you could add an additional house name or number such as 4 Smith Street, Park Wood, Maidstone, Kent, England.

I doubt that there are any hard and fast 'rules' and you can write whatever you prefer. I sometimes even leave out the country and county because I'm the only one looking at my tree and I know where these places are. If I ever do a tree for others I write in the country.

[DavidG02]

I doubt that there are any hard and fast 'rules' and you can write whatever you prefer. I sometimes even leave out the country and county because I'm the only one looking at my tree and I know where these places are. If I ever do a tree for others I write in the country.

This was my 1st mistake. I figured I would be the only one looking at the tree and I could ''handle '' all the information. But when you start getting above 1000 names it becomes harder to work out where in the scheme people fit.

Once I started adding place names then I was able to link movement and connections.

Using your example there may be occasions where you could add an additional house name or number such as 4 Smith Street, Park Wood, Maidstone, Kent, England.

Going with the above would , now, be my preferred method. You can narrow your searches down to neighbours ie marriages that happen because people live in the same street etc.

One of my stepfathers ancestors lived in the same street and having the numerical address made it easy to see how easy it was for them to meet. ( a matter of houses )

 

[Ruskie]

I'm not sure that adding "Warwickshire and England" to an address in Birmingham would help me in any way David. In my small family tree made for and used solely by myself, I find the addition of Country and in some cases County, to be a bit cumbersome and unnecessary.

The OP wants to be consistent which I'm sure is the right way to go - if all of his research is in England for example, he may wish to omit "England". If his families moved about (or he shares his tree with others with little knowledge of these places), then adding the country would probably be wise. I think many (if not most) family history programmes will give a pull down option of previous place names to select from to ensure addresses are recorded the same.

There can be additional problems as I found with one of my ancestors who was born in Gloucestershire - the county boundaries changed and it is now in Warwickshire, so if you are being consistent you need to take into account these kinds of issues. Hence my preference for flexibility.  I prefer to take each address as it comes - we often aren't given a street number and street name, sometimes all we have is a place or name or parish from a census (and that can differ for each census), so there are times when we have no option but to be flexible.   

I agree that often neighbours can be very useful. I've found many instances of relatives living next door and future spouses in close vicinity.

[pinefamily]

I have only put the country where the individual has emigrated or changed country, just so it is clear in my mind when I look at it.