Why does FamilySearch add cemetery locations to its standards database?
Just a point of interest, really. I don't see requests for hospital names* to be added (as a place of birth or death) but regularly see requests for a cemetery to be added. As long as the cemetery can be associated with the town / city in which it is situated, why can't users be happy with using the standard placename for where the cemetery is located and add the finer details to form what will appear as the display name?
Another point is whether they should be added with the current address, or as the location was known when the individual was buried there. I see Find A Grave always seems to use the current unitary authority in identifying the burial location, instead of how it was known in the past. Certainly, entering the location as how is is known today would help descendants locate the graves of their relatives / ancestors far more easily.
*BTW - I realise hospitals have been added to the database, but their addition doesn't seem anywhere near a popular request as when it comes to cemeteries.
Best Answers
-
Hi Paul - Personally, I like having the cemetery as part of the standard place. It saves looking around at sources, other information, notes or whatever to see the cemetery. And I think your BTW comment contains the reason. Very few people are interested in visiting the place of birth or death except for famous people. They are much more interested in visiting the place of burial.
Thanks for all you do on FamilySearch Community. You always provide insightful comments and I appreciate it.
2 -
Currently, Salt Lake County, Utah, has fifty eight cemeteries entered in the places database.
If I standardized where my grandparents are buried as Salt Lake, Utah, United States, the map looks like this:
If I standardize it to the actual cemetery, it looks like this:
This makes it much easier to find the actual cemetery right from Family Tree. That is one advantage to adding cemeteries to the places database.
For large cemeteries, one entry in the database covers a lot of people. For small cemeteries, it can make otherwise nearly impossible to find spots easy to locate.
Also, entering the cemetery gives the Map My Ancestors option in the mobile app a nice feature. If I go into the app and search specifically for Wasatch Lawn Memorial Park, it gives me a list of my twelve relatives that are buried there:
If I were traveling somewhere that I know I had ancestors, I could quickly find where I might visit their gravestones by entering the local cemetery names. For example, I know that my great-grandmother is buried in Tabor, Alberta. So if I am traveling through, who else might I Iook for there? The app gives me the names of another eight close relatives.. If it should happen to be Memorial Day, I should bring a lot of flowers with me:
As far as how the names of cemeteries should be found in the Places database, like any other location, the Places database allows all historical variations and jurisdictions that might be needed to be associated with the same latitude and longitude.
1
Answers
-
Many thanks to you (and Wayland) for responding to my query.
Yes, I can now see the usefulness in adding the more specific location of the cemetery, rather than just a town / city - especially in relation to locating a number of relatives who were buried at the same place. Your screenshots are particularly helpful in illustrating your points.
The one outstanding issue I have relates to FamilySearch's stress on adding a standard name as is/was appropriate for the time period. More specifically, do you feel there is a need to change the format of the burial place after carrying it across (via the source linker) from a Find A Grave record? As mentioned, Find A Grave always appears to add the cemetry name in its current form, rather than how it was known when the individual was buried. To me, it is a matter of emphasis: do we want to advise the exact address of the place ones relative was buried - or, perhaps, the location (address as known today) where the relative is buried?
In line with that, in what form should a patron be asking for a cemetery placename to be added for relative who is still buried at the same location, but was buried hundreds of years ago, when the place came under a totally different jurisdiction from today? In Find A Grave's way, or the way FamilySearch usually advises?
0 -
Good question.
Are we entering where they were buried?
Or are we entering where they are buried?
Personally I enter places names as they were at the time of the event for burial just like for any other event. The map will always show the current location so it can be found if going to visit it. Like any other place, when fully entered into the Places database, cemeteries will have the various jurisdictions through time included as these for Kvinnherad, Hordaland, Norway do: https://www.familysearch.org/research/places/?focusedId=10923956&includeIsParent=true&primaryText=Kvinnherad,%20Hordaland,%20Norway&reqParents=551991&reqParentsLabel=Municipality&reqParentsType=201&reqTypeLabel=Cemetery&reqTypes=20&searchTypeaheadInputText=Search%20Within:Kvinnherad,%20Hordaland,%20Norway
If the cemetery is not fully entered but in is the database with just current information, then the display name can show the historical name, the standard the current name, and the map the location.
Also, as far as adding fine details to a place name, if I have the information, I also add the plot number to the display name like this:
which really helps in finding the person. I've been to cemeteries and found the office locked up tight with no caretaker in sight. Without the plot number searching can take a long time.
0 -
I have requested numerous cemeteries to be added to the Places gazetteer. Most have been early American colonial family, farm, and town cemeteries. Some of these old cemeteries have received no interments in a few centuries. Due to changes of jurisdiction, for genealogical researchers it can be a huge time saver to indicate the jurisdiction at the time of burial; that will lead to the correct ancillary record collection. Many records are not yet online.
0 -
Are we entering where they were buried?
Or are we entering where they are buried?
Good questions! These can be different cemeteries. Older cities very often have required relocations to accommodate new infrastructure.
0 -
Just a thought regarding hospitals for birth places...only in the last 100 years was it common for births to be in hospitals. Prior to that (1000s of years) babies were born at home.
0 -
and usually died at home.
0 -
I am grateful for the responses that I have received, which have helped me understand the desire of many patrons to have cemetery names added to the database.
0 -
Just a by the way comment: one of the more interesting re-interment stories concerns Savannah International Airport in Georgia, United States: https://savannahairport.com/business/about/graves/
0
