CHI (Channel Islands) is available as county when creating new entry in Gazetteer

[AnneV-Learn]

Issue reported by @geoffj-FUG

I have been cleaning up the Gazetteer. I noticed that I had entries against CHI. I tried and was able to enter aplace against it, Appendix B of the Full Handbook has a Chapman Code table. Only level 3 Chapman Codes should be able to be entered agianst in the Gazetteer. CHI is not a level 3 Chapman Code. Geoff

[AnneV-Learn]

As far as I can determine the configuration of chapman_code related to this is currently as follows:

'Islands' => { 'Channel Islands' => 'CHI', 'Alderney' => 'ALD', 'Guernsey' => 'GSY', 'Jersey' => 'JSY', 'Isle of Man' => 'IOM', 'Sark' => 'SRK' }

and there is also the following:

UNNEEDED_COUNTIES = [ 'Central', 'Clwyd', 'Dumfries and Galloway', 'Dyfed', 'Grampian', 'Gwent', 'Gwynedd', 'Highland', 'London (City)', 'Lothian', 'Mid Glamorgan', 'Military', 'Orkney', 'Other Locations', 'Out of County', 'Powys', 'Shetland', 'South Glamorgan', 'Strathclyde', 'Tayside', 'Unknown', 'West Glamorgan', 'Western Isles', 'Yorkshire', 'England', 'Scotland', 'Ireland', 'Wales' ] those represent counties that are excluded from the counties available when creating a new Gazetteer place

I don’t know the history of this configuration. Should 'Channel Islands' be added to the list of UNNEEDED_COUNTIES?

[Captainkirkdawson]

The Channel Islands have always been a problem. FC1 treated them as a county (CHI). The TNA initially treated the Channel Islands as a county but changed to treating 'ALD', 'GSY', 'JSY', 'IOM', and 'SRK' as separate counties in 1871. FC1 was initially set up based on FC1. FC2 was restructured to follow the TNA with CSVProc with the exception of CHI where it continued to follow FC1 since CHI was managed by one person and team and the volume of records was minimal. The FC2 search has always functioned at the CHI level both in terms of search place and birth place https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/blob/master/lib/chapman_code.rb#L68-L84 . As a result I suggest no changes be made to the Gazetteer unless we wish to undertake a significant update to both the county structure of the parameters as well as the Gazetteer. This would have to be done with the very active involvement of the CHI county coordinator. Personally I believe there are more significant issues to be addressed.

[PatReynolds]

Putting on Ice as may wish to address at a later date.

[geoffj-FUG]

The solution as I see it is the same as the Yorkshire solution. Appendix B of the Coordinators part of the Handbook has a hierarchy of Chapman Codes. The concept applied to Yorkshire is that YKS is level 2 and the Ridings are level 3. New entries can only be entered for level 3 Counties (i.e. the Ridings). The system validates any entry for YKS which aligns with a Gazetteer entry in a Riding. The same concept has been applied to HAM and IOW. My view is that CHI is a level 1 entry so should not have places against it. They should be against the individual Island. So CHI St Helier would validate against the Gazetteer entry of JSY S Helier. Exactly the same concept. To do otherwise would create duplicate entries in the Gazetteer and we are working hard to avoid that. That is one reason why the hierarchy was developed. Geoff

[geoffj-FUG]

This will be able to be addressed when POB searching is developed.

[geoffj-FUG]

This is not necessary. We can add the places to the correct Islands in the Channel Islands in the Gazetteer We have a number of stories regarding searching. The story on searching by England, Ireland etc covers searching for the Channel Islands. The Chapman Code hierarchy to allow this has already been defined (see Validators section Appendix B of the Handbook). The search function is part of the Search epic. I believe that this story should be removed as it can cause later problems. To implement this story breaks the overall structure and rules that have been created and will complicate the implementation of the country level search. Geoff