Fine tune map pins for free-form/display placenames

genthusiast

Per @Gordon Collett suggestion, I am posting this as a new Idea.

https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/482917#Comment_482917

Thank you for your consideration.

genthusiast

Here is a little mockup to hopefully show what this suggestion could look like:

I would think putting the Lat., Long. field next to the user entry Display/free-form placename field - would help people understand that one is fine tuning the map pin location for that placename - but I think it would programatically be a sub-level pin of the Standardized placename. I'm not really sure if sub-level pins could be added ... might defeat the purpose of a Standard, but that's the Idea - just move the pin to the actual location found in referenced research.

Gordon Collett

I think this is a great idea. I think I would label it "Custom Lat., Long. (Optional)"

This would be very helpful for those areas where the Standards database will never have more than a very broad area such as the current standard "Pacific Ocean." Each square mile of the Pacific will never be in the database as a separate place. But families that have lost relatives at sea and know the coordinates for where the ship went down would probably really like to be able to see that precise spot on the Timeline map.

genthusiast

Another more generic example image - it's probably good to fill in the fields with an example:

I assume what could be done is create a USER SUBMITTED LOCATIONS WITHIN list for the encompassing Standardardized location to collect all the pins. Those could be either Improve this Place submissions or submitted from the interface. The trick in some areas might be entering the Standardized location before submitting pins within (obviously). But the Oceans and Seas seem to be covered - so those are ready 🙂

genthusiast

If one uses the Search Within: prefix on a search of a parent location - it will show all children pins currently contained.

Example:

https://www.familysearch.org/research/places/?reqParents=342&reqParentsLabel=State&reqParentsType=362&includeIsParent=true&primaryText=Utah%2C%20United%20States&searchTypeaheadInputText=Search%20Within%3AUtah%2C%20United%20States

genthusiast

Here is a slide show demonstrating envisioned behavior for presenting the user with Lat., Long. (optional) entry field. If located the Lat., Long can be suggested - with entry tip/note of:

"If the suggested Lat., Long. are not correct you may enter the closest pin location you have been able to determine from your research. The free-form entry will then be provisionally added to FamilySearch Places."

Animation.gif

The resulting data in the person profile would be a map pin for both - the free-form entry and the containing Standardized place:

Potentially this could resolve confusion between the free-form entry place and Standardized Place and also get more map pin location contributions to FamilySearch Places database.