Discussion of session 2 readings: Aucott 2019 & Hammond 2018

[gabrielbodard]

Please discuss the two following readings in this thread:

• Paula Aucott & Humphrey Southall. 2019. “Locating Past Places in Britain: Creating and Evaluating the GB1900 Gazetteer.” International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 13.1-2, 69–94. Available: http://doi.org/10.3366/ijhac.2019.0232
• L. Hammond & S. El Rashidi. 2018. “'Layers of London' - A Rich Geographical Palimpsest.” Geography 103.1, 42–45. Available: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10051491/1/GEOGRAPHY_vol103_part1_HAMMOND_EL_RASHIDI.pdf

As always, please think about the provenance of the papers (authors, venue etc.), and issues around cultural value of space, community involvement and ownership in projects, mapping vs other approaches to place and space, as well as your responses to the papers in themselves.

[PAZHames]

Hello all! If possible, I will bump this comment down when the summaries are in. I had a specific query on Aucott and Southall. In the 'Discussion' section it states that 'Of course, a true spinal gazetteer is inherently untyped as it is concerned not with features but with a more abstract notion of ‘place’. I am a little confused as to how this can work? Surely as a gazeteer it cannot be purely conceptual and must actually have entries - so therefore how can it be untyped? Sorry if I'm being slow, I am new to the terminology so may be missing something obvious!

Thanks all! Phoebe

[gabrielbodard]

@PAZHames I guess what they mean is that in their proposed ideal gazetteer (and GB1900 for instance) doesn't distinguish between types of places—in part because they merge references to close places that share a name and are not easily distinguished by non-specialists. So rather than say place 1 is a city, 2 is a borough, 3 is a region, 4 is a street, 5 is an ancient ruin, etc., it simply says they are all places. (And you'd have to follow their external references, bibliography, etc., to find out more about them.)

[PAZHames]

@PAZHames I guess what they mean is that in their proposed ideal gazetteer (and GB1900 for instance) doesn't distinguish between types of places—in part because they merge references to close places that share a name and are not easily distinguished by non-specialists. So rather than say place 1 is a city, 2 is a borough, 3 is a region, 4 is a street, 5 is an ancient ruin, etc., it simply says they are all places. (And you'd have to follow their external references, bibliography, etc., to find out more about them.)

oh, I understand! I was most definitely getting my terminology in a scramble - thanks, Gabby!

[despinaborcea]

Aucott and Humphrey’s article describes the creation of the GB1900 gazetteer as a result of the homonymous project. The authors divide the corpus of the discussion in 5 parts to discuss the creation, usefulness and potential of GB1900 as the most detailed historical gazetteer of Britain. I summarise each section in the bullet points below:

• Creating the historical record of British place names: The first part of the article discusses the history of mapping and how the GB1900 gazetteer was created. The authors begin with the mapping of Camden in Britannia (1586) and list a few examples up to the 20th century. In these instances, name inventories were created through itineraries from routes, not gazetteers, until the English Place Name Survey (EPNS) began in 1923. This survey collected etymological history of English toponyms, which varied in linguistic origin from Anglo-Saxon to Norse and Celtic. This led to the launch of Cymru1900 in 2013 as a gazetteer for Wales and in 2016, GB1900 was launched to incorporate England and Scotland alongside Wales. • The GB1900: The gazetteer was created through crowdsourcing. Three datasets available for download resulted from this process: a ‘final raw dump’ in zip format, the ‘Complete GB1900 gazetteer’ (‘a single listing of points and coordinates’) and the ‘abridged GB1900 gazetteer’ (‘containing the same columns as the complete dataset but with common non-place names removed’). • Usefulness of GB1900: The authors first compare the applicability of the gazetteer with the Digital Exposure of English Place-Names (DEEP) project. The latter is aimed at digitising the EPNS volumes and is deemed incomplete, as EPNS did not include mapping information about Wales and Scotland and data on some English counties is also partial. Geonames is the second example the authors use for comparison. It is based on the US Geological Survey’s Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), focused the United States, and of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency’s Geographic Names Database (NGA Gazetteer), focusing on the rest of the world. There results are mixed: for example, while GB1900 incorporates more churches than Geonames, the latter features more hotels. • Assessment of the accuracy of local area names: In order to assess the accuracy of GB1900, the three Norfolk hundreds of Holt, North Erpingham and South Erpingham were chosen for a case study. A comparative analysis was integrated in a table figure at the end of the section, with datasets from six gazetteers: DEEP, OS Open Names, OS 50k, Geonames, NGA and GB1900. While the DEEP dataset had the most records of place names out of all, many of these records do not have a specific location attributed on a map. GB1900 overtakes DEEP and the remaining four datasets in the ‘Administrative Units’, ‘Natural Landscapes Features’, ‘Transport’ and ‘Other’ sections. • GB1900 as an online gazetteer: Its online availability allowed the gazetteer to be included in several projects, by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, the Great Britain Historical GIS and The National Library of Scotland.

The authors conclude by highlighting the necessity of a ‘spinal’ gazetteer, a smaller version of a typical gazetteer, because the latter tends to occasionally overlap on a map two or more mentions of a place ‘name’, despite the fact that when mentioned more than once in a historical context, a place ‘name’ rarely has the exact same meaning. In this case, an advantage of the GB1900 gazetteer is its basis on one set of detailed maps, which heavily reduces duplication occurrences. Another advantage represents its potential to integrate other gazetteers in its dataset (e.g., the project integrating DEEP data in GB1900). As a shortcoming, GB cannot outdo the Ordnance Survey’s MasterMap system in terms of records. However, the latter is not freely available online and is not a historical gazetteer. As a result, the authors conclude that GB1900 is the most enhanced out of all Britain’s historical gazetteers free for online consultation.

[RebeccaKimberlin]

Hammond and El Rashidii's article examines the Heritage Lottery-funded project 'Layers of London' as a tool for expanding students' ways of thinking and approaches within geography education. They consider the meaning of 'place' and the relationship within that definition between location, landscape and meaning, and emphasise the intertwined relationship between people and places, that they do not exist separately, or as people living in a place, but are connected. The article is divided into introducing the 'Layers of London' project, and how the project can be used to enhance geography education. The project is online and map-based, exploring and recording the heritage of London.

For the project's benefit in geography education, the authors highlight two areas: understanding the concept of 'place' and developing geographical skills. The 'concept' of place is examined through the definitions provided by Cresswell (2008): as occupying physical space; as having history; and as associated with meaning and a 'sense of place.' This relationship between location, landscape and meaning corresponds to the collaborative aspect of the project that allows students to appreciate the diversity of people, memories, and imagination within a place, and responses to that place. Maps provide a visual guide for this diversity and changes; the article points to the example of Bethnal Green Library (converted from an asylum).

On a practical basis, the authors observe how map work is important in allowing students to develop their geo-referencing skills, attain an understanding of how maps can represent places, and develop knowledge of how a place can evolve and change - this aspect recalls the title of the article, describing the project as a 'geographical palimpsest.' Such change is presented in figure 3 in the comparison of an area of post-war London.

The authors' conclusion reiterates the point made in the introduction, that the 'Layers of London' project is intended to be used by educational institutions, by students, joining the individuals who have already made contributions of their own experiences of London.

[K-Doering]

• GB1900 as an online gazetteer: Its online availability allowed the gazetteer to be included in several projects, by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, the Great Britain Historical GIS and The National Library of Scotland.

The authors conclude by highlighting the necessity of a ‘spinal’ gazetteer, a smaller version of a typical gazetteer, because the latter tends to occasionally overlap on a map two or more mentions of a place ‘name’, despite the fact that when mentioned more than once in a historical context, a place ‘name’ rarely has the exact same meaning. In this case, an advantage of the GB1900 gazetteer is its basis on one set of detailed maps, which heavily reduces duplication occurrences. Another advantage represents its potential to integrate other gazetteers in its dataset (e.g., the project integrating DEEP data in GB1900).

Thank you Despina for this summary!

The idea of separating the sense of 'place' from pure data was something I hadn't thought about before. This made me think of Urban Archive which the museum I work for uses to show how locations have changed over time. All to say, the human aspect and sense of place is more closely related to what is there (or was there for our purposes) and, per our Thursday lecture, how it personally relates to you rather than just the locational data.

I also hadn't considered that more data could be a negative aspect of a gazetteer but it certainly makes sense that a more specific and focused gazetteer would provide the clearest record (and assist with the overall user experience). The value of GB1900 being a virtual gazetteer is quite incredible, physical gazetteers can grow out of date rather quickly. One criticism of the project would be the use of crowd-sourced information/assistance. In some cases, such as with A Street Near You, the sharing of information, such as photographs, can add to the community ownership and use. However, the inconsistencies in the records that needed to be manually changed for the GB1900 project are evidence of a lack of clear instruction by the leaders of the project or the indifference of the volunteers. The ability for the gazetteer to be used and added to by formal organizations I think is one of the most valuable aspects (as also is the case in the Urban Archive example). Unformatted text comes off to me as unreliable but I would be eager to hear other opinions.

[ChantalvanEgdom]

Hammond and El Rashidii's article examines the Heritage Lottery-funded project 'Layers of London' as a tool for expanding students' ways of thinking and approaches within geography education. They consider the meaning of 'place' and the relationship within that definition between location, landscape and meaning, and emphasise the intertwined relationship between people and places, that they do not exist separately, or as people living in a place, but are connected. The article is divided into introducing the 'Layers of London' project, and how the project can be used to enhance geography education. The project is online and map-based, exploring and recording the heritage of London.

For the project's benefit in geography education, the authors highlight two areas: understanding the concept of 'place' and developing geographical skills. The 'concept' of place is examined through the definitions provided by Cresswell (2008): as occupying physical space; as having history; and as associated with meaning and a 'sense of place.' This relationship between location, landscape and meaning corresponds to the collaborative aspect of the project that allows students to appreciate the diversity of people, memories, and imagination within a place, and responses to that place. Maps provide a visual guide for this diversity and changes; the article points to the example of Bethnal Green Library (converted from an asylum).

On a practical basis, the authors observe how map work is important in allowing students to develop their geo-referencing skills, attain an understanding of how maps can represent places, and develop knowledge of how a place can evolve and change - this aspect recalls the title of the article, describing the project as a 'geographical palimpsest.' Such change is presented in figure 3 in the comparison of an area of post-war London.

The authors' conclusion reiterates the point made in the introduction, that the 'Layers of London' project is intended to be used by educational institutions, by students, joining the individuals who have already made contributions of their own experiences of London.

Great summary, Rebecca! I found this article very thought provoking and it reminded me of the modern literary ideas on experiences places (flâneur/alienation/fragmentation) and how these different perspectives can affect the way that places are regarded. I especially liked they flagged the way in which art, literature and pictures (on social media) can expand the range of perspectives on places and Massey's distinction between space as a simultaneity of stories, but a place as a collection of stories. Never considered it in that way and I think it's an enriching thought to have!

[ChantalvanEgdom]

• GB1900 as an online gazetteer: Its online availability allowed the gazetteer to be included in several projects, by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, the Great Britain Historical GIS and The National Library of Scotland.

The authors conclude by highlighting the necessity of a ‘spinal’ gazetteer, a smaller version of a typical gazetteer, because the latter tends to occasionally overlap on a map two or more mentions of a place ‘name’, despite the fact that when mentioned more than once in a historical context, a place ‘name’ rarely has the exact same meaning. In this case, an advantage of the GB1900 gazetteer is its basis on one set of detailed maps, which heavily reduces duplication occurrences. Another advantage represents its potential to integrate other gazetteers in its dataset (e.g., the project integrating DEEP data in GB1900).

Thank you Despina for this summary!

The idea of separating the sense of 'place' from pure data was something I hadn't thought about before. This made me think of Urban Archive which the museum I work for uses to show how locations have changed over time. All to say, the human aspect and sense of place is more closely related to what is there (or was there for our purposes) and, per our Thursday lecture, how it personally relates to you rather than just the locational data.

I also hadn't considered that more data could be a negative aspect of a gazetteer but it certainly makes sense that a more specific and focused gazetteer would provide the clearest record (and assist with the overall user experience). The value of GB1900 being a virtual gazetteer is quite incredible, physical gazetteers can grow out of date rather quickly. One criticism of the project would be the use of crowd-sourced information/assistance. In some cases, such as with A Street Near You, the sharing of information, such as photographs, can add to the community ownership and use. However, the inconsistencies in the records that needed to be manually changed for the GB1900 project are evidence of a lack of clear instruction by the leaders of the project or the indifference of the volunteers. The ability for the gazetteer to be used and added to by formal organizations I think is one of the most valuable aspects (as also is the case in the Urban Archive example). Unformatted text comes off to me as unreliable but I would be eager to hear other opinions.

Interesting point raised, Kéyah! I agree that the voluntary additions can create an unreliable dimension to the project, which is a shame, but it can also add that level of personal experience that really makes a space into a place (as argued for in the Hammond and El Rashidi article). I think depending on the intention of the gazetteer you'd make a choice as to what takes precedence in the project.

Regarding the missing or incomplete areas in the GB1900 gazetteer, I also thought it'd be interesting to see how textual evidence can fill in the landscape and from there to look at where and why gaps exist, as way to more closely examine the texts and its priorities/context, and the same for duplications.

[FabioDFernandes]

Thank you Despina for the summary on of the article about the GB1900 gazetteer. Looking at the actual map myself, I found it quite interesting to see my own neighbourhood - the area was a lot smaller (surrounded by a lot of rural land even in the late 1800s), but the names of the streets have remained quite consistent, though there quite a few names around of areas which I do not recognise at all.

I would agree with both Kéyah (interesting link you provided!) and Chantal that one problem posed is certainly the potential unreliability of some voluntary contributions - there are the inconsistencies in the records (e.g. volunteers ignoring accents in Welsh and Gaelic names) and the lack of clear instructions have been mentioned. The article mentions that volunteers mostly focused on transcription, but could also add personal memories and knowledge - in this case, whilst I would imagine the overwhelming majority of contributors would contribute out of a degree of personal knowledge and enthusiasm (I mean, who else would?), there of course might be misguided or erroneous contributions too that might compromise the historical integrity (I suppose this would apply to all open-access projects). So, it would be interesting to know more about how this is regulated. Though of course, the ability for formal organisations to access and contribute absolutely works to enhance its reliability and quality. And absolutely, personal experience is incredibly valuable to these kinds of projects. As mentioned in the Thursday lecture, the sense of place can be one of incredible emotion (and also, peculiarities) that might not always be/have been captured on official records.

[FabioDFernandes]

Hammond and El Rashidii's article examines the Heritage Lottery-funded project 'Layers of London' as a tool for expanding students' ways of thinking and approaches within geography education. They consider the meaning of 'place' and the relationship within that definition between location, landscape and meaning, and emphasise the intertwined relationship between people and places, that they do not exist separately, or as people living in a place, but are connected. The article is divided into introducing the 'Layers of London' project, and how the project can be used to enhance geography education. The project is online and map-based, exploring and recording the heritage of London.

For the project's benefit in geography education, the authors highlight two areas: understanding the concept of 'place' and developing geographical skills. The 'concept' of place is examined through the definitions provided by Cresswell (2008): as occupying physical space; as having history; and as associated with meaning and a 'sense of place.' This relationship between location, landscape and meaning corresponds to the collaborative aspect of the project that allows students to appreciate the diversity of people, memories, and imagination within a place, and responses to that place. Maps provide a visual guide for this diversity and changes; the article points to the example of Bethnal Green Library (converted from an asylum).

On a practical basis, the authors observe how map work is important in allowing students to develop their geo-referencing skills, attain an understanding of how maps can represent places, and develop knowledge of how a place can evolve and change - this aspect recalls the title of the article, describing the project as a 'geographical palimpsest.' Such change is presented in figure 3 in the comparison of an area of post-war London.

The authors' conclusion reiterates the point made in the introduction, that the 'Layers of London' project is intended to be used by educational institutions, by students, joining the individuals who have already made contributions of their own experiences of London.

Thank you also, Rebecca, for your summary. I found the article interesting, in that it made it especially more clear to me what the purpose of Layers of London is - on a practical but even on a somewhat philosophical level. London, as with most large historic cities, is a city of layers. Even if a locale has not changed much on the surface, it is always interesting to be able to track its evolution, often even through peculiarities that don't stand out for their material/monumental conspicuousness. It is yet another form of studying the history of a city and society - the one of the environment and how it was lived in, used and embellished. The emotional, 'insider' contributions of volunteers is also incredibly valuable in this aspect.

[PAZHames]

Thanks so much for these summaries, both! They're really excellent. @FabioDFernandes re your point about how personal accounts might be regulated - I would also be really interested to know how this was achieved. But isn't subjectivity also slightly the point? As long as those elements of the data are clearly flagged as personal memories, when considering the emotional impact of place, it seems to me that conflicting memories and impressions are part of what make up the complexity of the tapestry, and also provide an interesting study as to how one place can have wildly different impressions on different people? I feel that whereas with the data regarding place names the human element is something which must be managed and regulated, with the personal experiences the human variability is quite a boon! Do we think regulation of this part is needed?

[FabioDFernandes]

Thank you Phoebe, you make a really, really good point which I had honestly not considered! I suppose there is a paradox to some extent here - there is both, I guess, textbook history, but then indeed also the way people have interpreted things and interacted with them too, in various ways, which is just as important and which we can't just invalidate from people and history. Societies, perhaps particularly urban ones, are incredibly complex and there is no orthodox approach to interpreting a city. And yes, I would agree data regarding place names is different in nature to the point of Layers in London - but then again, there are also 'official' names and 'local' names used by uniquely by inhabitants which may be loaded with emotional and cultural implications - they are also just as valuable in the study of societies and local histories. Whether regulation is needed in these contexts, a good question - I suppose as you have said, to distinguish between personal accounts and more official data would be a good compromise!

[Jessamyn-kcl]

"but then again, there are also 'official' names and 'local' names used by uniquely by inhabitants which may be loaded with emotional and cultural implications - they are also just as valuable in the study of societies and local histories. Whether regulation is needed in these contexts, a good question - I suppose as you have said, to distinguish between personal accounts and more official data would be a good compromise!"

I think this is a really important point to highlight - as was mentioned earlier in the thread, its really interesting that data can create something so personal and familiar, but to go the other way with that, I think it's also important to include the personal and familiar that isn't quite the same as concrete data. I think including local nicknames for areas and similar is a really important part of preserving the geography of London, and with projects like this, that information doesn't have to be lost, as it often has previously. I do agree that there needs to be some work to standardise and mark this on the site so contributors aren't repeating information, and users can clearly see distinctions between unofficial and official data.

[Jessamyn-kcl]

Thanks for the summaries Rebecca and Despina!

I particularly enjoyed the Hammond/El Rashidi article, but I think both put an really interesting emphasis on accessibility: be that through making the site open to contributions from the public, or by encouraging students to engage with historical learning and contextualise it against their understanding of the modern space too. I think Hammond/El Rashidi's point about 'thinking geographically' including more than just thinking about the physical layout, but things like population demographics and history is really important to bear in mind when we're looking at an area at a certain time period.

[K-Doering]

And yes, I would agree data regarding place names is different in nature to the point of Layers in London - but then again, there are also 'official' names and 'local' names used by uniquely by inhabitants which may be loaded with emotional and cultural implications - they are also just as valuable in the study of societies and local histories. Whether regulation is needed in these contexts, a good question - I suppose as you have said, to distinguish between personal accounts and more official data would be a good compromise!

Thank you all for your insights on the issue of personalization and 'official' versus 'unofficial' data. I agree that distinguishing the two types of data would be a good compromise. Yes, the inclusion of personal stories and interpretation of place is extremely valuable and we wouldn't want to lose it. Certainly a nuanced question. I appreciate this discussion!

[RebeccaKimberlin]

Thanks for the summaries Rebecca and Despina!

I particularly enjoyed the Hammond/El Rashidi article, but I think both put an really interesting emphasis on accessibility: be that through making the site open to contributions from the public, or by encouraging students to engage with historical learning and contextualise it against their understanding of the modern space too. I think Hammond/El Rashidi's point about 'thinking geographically' including more than just thinking about the physical layout, but things like population demographics and history is really important to bear in mind when we're looking at an area at a certain time period.

Yes definitely, I think highlighting the importance of accessibility makes sure that a space is thought of as the collective manifestation of 'unofficial' data of people's stories and memories, as well as its physical history. I would also add that the discussion of 'official' and 'unofficial' data could be seen to overlap with the aims of the field of memory studies, in how physical places contribute to what we remember and forget as a society.

[PAZHames]

Thanks for the summaries Rebecca and Despina! I particularly enjoyed the Hammond/El Rashidi article, but I think both put an really interesting emphasis on accessibility: be that through making the site open to contributions from the public, or by encouraging students to engage with historical learning and contextualise it against their understanding of the modern space too. I think Hammond/El Rashidi's point about 'thinking geographically' including more than just thinking about the physical layout, but things like population demographics and history is really important to bear in mind when we're looking at an area at a certain time period.

Yes definitely, I think highlighting the importance of accessibility makes sure that a space is thought of as the collective manifestation of 'unofficial' data of people's stories and memories, as well as its physical history. I would also add that the discussion of 'official' and 'unofficial' data could be seen to overlap with the aims of the field of memory studies, in how physical places contribute to what we remember and forget as a society.

This is so interesting! I hadn't thought of it through that lens, but love the idea of its use as a resource for studying collective societal memory over time. Do we think there is any way in which the project might be helped further in that direction? (Without losing its primary focus)

[gabrielbodard]

I love the way this discussion has touched on the complexities of official versus personal history, reliability, verifiability, academic credibility, and also immediacy, relevance, different types of history. I was going to ask if we could consider personal reactions to places as primary source data (rather than writing about history by scholars), but I think you've already said everything I would have added!

[despinaborcea]

Thank you Phoebe, you make a really, really good point which I had honestly not considered! I suppose there is a paradox to some extent here - there is both, I guess, textbook history, but then indeed also the way people have interpreted things and interacted with them too, in various ways, which is just as important and which we can't just invalidate from people and history. Societies, perhaps particularly urban ones, are incredibly complex and there is no orthodox approach to interpreting a city. And yes, I would agree data regarding place names is different in nature to the point of Layers in London - but then again, there are also 'official' names and 'local' names used by uniquely by inhabitants which may be loaded with emotional and cultural implications - they are also just as valuable in the study of societies and local histories. Whether regulation is needed in these contexts, a good question - I suppose as you have said, to distinguish between personal accounts and more official data would be a good compromise!

To echo Fabio in a slightly different direction, 'defining' or 'understanding' a place through a map is heavily influenced by the cartographic aim of a project/individual. The Layers of London exercise could be an example - we had different filters for our searches (classical elements and winged figures/angels) and we found overlapping monuments which match both. This made me think of the 'layers' of a place and the 'fluidity' of a particular location, which can differ in relevance according to any individual or set criteria, despite its fixed (and/or defined) cartographical position. The purpose of a map becomes incredibly significant for analysing what features on it, and, equally important, what is left out.

[Kiamanx]

Excellent summaries! I thought I would return to this once I had completed my own Layer of London to approach with a fresh perspective. Expanding on Despina's point, I'd say that Layers of London definitely appeals to a sense of personal history that resonates with a particular person (a bit like how Kéyah put it). Different layers would synchronise with different peoples interpretations of London, some being wildly different to the other.

The article put it in a way that I had never considered by bringing up Blake's London, his "charter'd streets" with the "marks of wisdom" and "marks of woe" may not be a universal view of the city, but can resonate with everyone who has visited London. Going through my own Layers of London collection, I've noticed how much of the city is buried, how they discover so much more of the original city through sheer accident, and how the concept of a Londoner has changed. We are a world away from the "Great Stink" of yesteryear, yet in some ways we are closer to it than ever since it certainly shapes my view of what the modern city was built upon. The modern-life architecture that surrounds us now simply serves to build on the foundation that already existed, but that's only my own interpretation.

That's why I don't believe that the abundance of the voluntary additions serves to harm the site on a grand scale, it simply allows for different interpretations of London to be made public and the lesser-known anecdotes of some areas to be shared. It all reminds me of Recogito and the collaborative nature of that site. While large-scale regulation of annotations would be the ideal, it is incredibly difficult for a project of this size to accommodate all those requests. Therefore, I think Layers of London does a good job of building its interface around the user so that they can do their own moderation.

Apologies for the meta of this, I was surprised about how philosophical a journal entry on a digital cartography site could get!