Okay, I understand better now, what your point is, I had missed the explanation of PNA and yes I mis spoke in reference to township and range as historical names rather than positions. Although it does seem to me that in some places like Ohio there really are historical references to townships or ranges as place names.
I will point out contrary to what seems to be a major assumption of this discussion though a lot of places that used to have names no longer exist, such as Hatchville for example. And yes, my system does definitely introduce error, again with the Hatchville example if in fact the event wasn't in Hatchville but say in the northwest part of Cady Twp but someone has referred to it as Hatcheville. Then my referring to it in my data as Dunn county will be in error.
If I know it was in Cady rather than Hatchville however I would use that name. My comparison to camels was in reference to being so concerned about getting an exact place name hierarchy when so often we don't have a clue where it belongs.
If I create some construct for Boston that doesn't involve county reference it will require me to create an alternate hierarchy and terminology etc or whatever which would be all well and good if I had the time and money to go to Boston and track down the exact documents and locations for the 2 or 3 hundred people I probably have in my file referenced to Boston MA with some fact or other, but the truth is I don't have that kind of money nor will I live that long.
I am interested in getting the broad picture and seeing how my family web all fits together in broad terms. You are right, you do it your way and I will do it mine. I think the whole point of this discussion is probably apropos a later version of FTM than I use, or perhaps it is only a concern for gedcoms which I try to avoid using for exporting any of my material. Anyway it has been an interesting discussion and I thank you all for enlightening me to the extent I have understood the problem, which obviously is not very well.
I will point out contrary to what seems to be a major assumption of this discussion though a lot of places that used to have names no longer exist, such as Hatchville for example. And yes, my system does definitely introduce error, again with the Hatchville example if in fact the event wasn't in Hatchville but say in the northwest part of Cady Twp but someone has referred to it as Hatcheville. Then my referring to it in my data as Dunn county will be in error.
If I know it was in Cady rather than Hatchville however I would use that name. My comparison to camels was in reference to being so concerned about getting an exact place name hierarchy when so often we don't have a clue where it belongs.
If I create some construct for Boston that doesn't involve county reference it will require me to create an alternate hierarchy and terminology etc or whatever which would be all well and good if I had the time and money to go to Boston and track down the exact documents and locations for the 2 or 3 hundred people I probably have in my file referenced to Boston MA with some fact or other, but the truth is I don't have that kind of money nor will I live that long.
I am interested in getting the broad picture and seeing how my family web all fits together in broad terms. You are right, you do it your way and I will do it mine. I think the whole point of this discussion is probably apropos a later version of FTM than I use, or perhaps it is only a concern for gedcoms which I try to avoid using for exporting any of my material. Anyway it has been an interesting discussion and I thank you all for enlightening me to the extent I have understood the problem, which obviously is not very well.