"Is Missing A City" needs exception added
I don't think this needs much explanation!
This is on: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/K2NN-2KV
Comments
-
0
-
I've been keeping a mental list of things that aren't errors which the "data quality" thing nonetheless labels and counts as errors. The trouble is, my brain is a sieve. I can remember two, currently:
No indexed sources (never an error).
No burial date (not an error if there's a death date).This thread suggests a third entry:
Missing a city (not an error for rural events).
("At sea" is kinda the same thing as rural, right? Just a bit more wet.) The trick, of course, is how does the algorithm tell that it's standardized to the county because that's the best choice available, or because the location hasn't been identified? The one should definitely not be flagged, the other probably should. So other than adding large bodies of water to the list of things acceptable as "cities", I don't know if this one's implementable.
What should be implementable is changing that word "city" to something …smaller and broader. (Currently in Hungary, out of 3155 communities, 26 are what I would call cities, 322 are towns, and the rest are basically villages. In other words, 99% of locations in Hungary — even when fully specified — are technically "missing a city".)
1
