Erroneous change in location for several communities in the Province of Manitoba.
Until about a month ago, the community of "Rapid City" was noted on FamilySearch.org as being located in the Province of Manitoba. Today I note that the default reading in FamilySearch.org reads "Rapid City, Saskatchewan, Canada" and a similar situation exists for the several communities of Moline, Cadurcis, Pettapiece, etc. which are also located in the Province of Manitoba, but now are noted on FamilySearch.org as "Moline, Saskatchewan, Canada", "Cadurcis, Saskatchewan, Canada", "Pettapiece, Saskatchewan, Canada", etc. Please reverse your error.
Rapid City: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_City,_Manitoba - In FamilySearch Places Database/Standard/Authority Rapid City, Manitoba is not listed but the 1870 former name of Ralston Colony (Place ID=3435345) is listed. To Correct this you can use the Improve This Place link and submit the various metadata (Place Name, Start Date, Historical Information, Research Link, Display Name, etc.) you feel need correction. Once this provisional place is reviewed and accepted by FamilySearch Places team - it will probably be accepted and return to the places Standardized database. I have no idea about why it may have disappeared since a month ago - but could be due to Place Standardization automated processes which incorrectly modified the place. The other locations you mention changing are probably due to similar automated processes and can be corrected in the same manner - or if you want to attach records having the change issue - a Moderator can add the places to a list needing correction.0
Hi @DavidFord471010 we would like to review these errors. Can you provide a link to a specific page where you have seen these incorrect locations? Thanks. Maile🙂0
I don't think that I could have been any more explicit or detailed about the accrued errors, and have no intention of repeating myself. If your "automated processes" are responsible for introducing errors, then you should fix the system instead of asking contributors to keep pointing out the mistakes.0
@DavidFord471010 We have confirmed the error and reported it for correction. Since you did not choose to provide us a specific example, we did a general search for Rapid City, Saskatchewan, Canada. The results we saw were in the Find a Grave record collection. That is the one we reported. If you see is elsewhere, please provide us with the specifics0
...no intention of repeating myself.
You did not include a citation of records you may indicate have changed or a location/address at which you see the error - only claimed that "Until about a month ago...". If you refer to record Standardized locations it will be helpful to give a citation of the records. But from my following analysis ... you may be correct that FamilySearch needs to correct these places in their places database.
From my analysis and legwork the following FamilySearch places (in Places Database/Standard) do need correction to Manitoba - even the Basic Information and Research Links do support Manitoba instead of Saskatchewan. Again I have no idea whether David's claim of this changing a month ago is accurate - there is not a public method to track recent changes in the places database. I do see that these places show an Accepted status, not Certified. Could someone have submitted these in error in the past month? There should be someone on the Places team that can track down this issue.
2179673 Rapid City, Saskatchewan needs correction to Manitoba
8113484 Moline, Saskatchewan needs correction to Manitoba
8113486 Cadurcis, Saskatchewan needs correction to Manitoba
8113483 Pettapiece, Saskatchewan needs correction to Manitoba
Question: If a place is Accepted but not Certified does that allow the place Standardization errors we commonly see? I have no idea whether correcting these places will resolve any associated records which may have been linked to them - but hopefully so. In my mind - linking of records to a place in the FamilySearch places Authority/Standard/Database should prevent it from having a Standardization error by bounding/limiting that place to the coordinates/bounding jurisdiction/parent place (for the timeframe of that record).1
@DavidFord471010 and @genthusiast If the places database has the wrong standardization, you should request a correction in on the Places page: https://www.familysearch.org/research/places/.
On a place like the ones you listed, for example https://www.familysearch.org/research/places/?focusedId=2179673&searchTypeaheadInputText=Rapid%20City,%20Manitoba&text=Rapid%20City,%20Manitoba&pagenum=1&pagesize=20, below the map, click Improve this place and explain the error.0
@N Tychonievich yes I mentioned that above. But if this changed in the past month and may have proliferated Standardization errors - which I think is what David says - only FamilySearch Places team will know that - and could/should investigate that. Why make more difficult what should have already been correct and can be investigated as to why it changed? I think that is what perturbs David and myself at this point. The coordinate, Basic information, and Research Links already contain Manitoba as parent place - why should it have been changed?? I am uninformed as to underlying linkage of places database/authority - Canada country map implies use of Google Maps - did something change in the past month? I've referenced the same question in Places Group - if that's where this should be categorized.0
The Places Team is looking into this. We will try to find out who changed them, and work to resolve why there were changed to the wrong Province.0
We have resolved the issue. The person confused the Municipality of Saskatchewan with the Province, and had merged the Municipality to the province. The Municipality of Saskatchewan has been restored which ended in 2014, and was replaced with Rural Municipality of Oakview.
For the places you mentioned, they have been updated. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.0