search

FreeUKGen / FreeCENMigration

Issue tracking for project migrating FreeCEN to FreeCEN2 genealogy record database and search engine architecture. Code developed here is based on that developed in MyopicVicar
https://www.freecen.org.uk
Apache License 2.0
4 stars 3 forks source link

Durham Parms #1092

Closed Captainkirkdawson closed 3 years ago

Captainkirkdawson commented 3 years ago

Ali is currently working on Durham at District level.

Captainkirkdawson commented 3 years ago

It is reported by @geoffj-FUG that Durham presents another problem. It has listed wards at the District level.

Captainkirkdawson commented 3 years ago

@geoffj-FUG Is this true for all years or just one? Extent of issue is important in determining action

Captainkirkdawson commented 3 years ago

Ali reports _Classic examples are Islandshire and Norhamshire for DUR 1841.

These are NBL places, pieces are in FreeCEN1 for NBL. How have they changed to DUR in CEN2?_

Captainkirkdawson commented 3 years ago

Ali noted the two 1841 districts mentioned above are not inter-county/inter-parish problems, they are erroneously linked by TNA to wrong county, being far away from Durham border. Yes, they will need moving, due to mistakes by TNA.

FreecenBren commented 3 years ago

I am not up to date with things. So here goes my questions or thoughts that are probably all wrong as I have my FC1 head on.

This is what Genuki says about DUR/NBL

From History, Topography 1841. Just one place as an example. "KYLOE, a parish in the division of Islandshire, county Northumberland, formerly in Durham.

I am sure we will have many of these kind of situations in the future. NTT and DBY are but just two. Even in today’s geography, places move from one county to another for the Parliamentary Elections wards and reorganised County And City Councils.

FreeCEN have always gone by the National Archives split and the relative PIECE number allocated by them.

I do not have an answer to this but I do know I am confused by just reading what is happening. Why cannot we just use the PARMS as they are in FC1 that match the images in the respective Piece numbers that we are transcribing. J I am sure someone will explain the issue in ‘Simple Terms’

Knowing how I feel at the moment I just get more confused. I know some COORDS are as well.

Some clarity is needed. Sorry to be a pain.

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 at 16:38, Kirk Dawson notifications@github.com wrote:

Ali reports _Classic examples are Islandshire and Norhamshire for DUR 1841.

These are NBL places, pieces are in FreeCEN1 for NBL. How have they changed to DUR in CEN2?_

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/FreeCENMigration/issues/1092#issuecomment-755414072, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADIL3VSCIDE3GKIQC7DO73TSYSGZNANCNFSM4VXX6RSA .

Captainkirkdawson commented 3 years ago

@FreecenBren Thanks for the comment. I will try to respond in simple terms

The Parms for CSVProc are 100% based on TNA. They are a complete extract of their information. They have been extracted into a District> Piece>Civil Parish structure. Which is the TNA structure.

So CSVProc is based on the same information used by Freecen1.

It has just being displayed in ways they were not previously available that makes analysis easier including by linking each District and Piece in CSVProc directly to the entry on TNA.

Hence I do not understand the source of the confusion.

I also find the comment about KYLOE, a parish in the division of KYLOE, a parish in the division of Islandshire, county Northumberland, formerly in Durham, county Northumberland, somewhat difficult to respond to based on your and Ali's comment

Freecen1 does not mention Durham in its content until 1851 so its not clear what or how they might have dealt with the 1841 parms. No files have been created in freecen1 or 2 for 1841 or 1851 in Durham

TNA has the KYLOE, a parish in the ward of Islandshire in Durham; it is in piece HO107_318 and that piece is not in Northumberland or Durham on Freecen1.

Captainkirkdawson commented 3 years ago

@geoffj-FUG I do not understand why the 1841 districts are a problem by being a ward. Wards are the equivalent of Hundreds in other counties and that is how TNA has described all of 1841

Captainkirkdawson commented 3 years ago

@geoffj-FUG from wiki County Durham was divided into wards, analogous to hundreds. From an 1840 map of County Durham [6].

Chester-le-Street Sadberge Easington Stockton

Northumberland was subdivided into baronies, which were arranged in six wards ] The wards were analogous to hundreds. From the National Gazetteer of Britain and Ireland (1868) [12]

Bamburgh Castle[45] Coquetdale Glendale[46] Morpeth Tynedale

So neither county seems to have some of the wards in TNA Durham

geoffj-FUG commented 3 years ago

Kirk

It was late at night and I did not investigate further.

My experience was that Hundreds, Wapentakes, Baronies were the same thing.

In my experience Wards were a Borough administration area. Now I know better.

Geoff

Captainkirkdawson commented 3 years ago

@geoffj-FUG No problem I did not know until I did some research.

There may well still be issues with 1841 in Durham but that is likely to be a common statement for 1841 everywhere