--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rootsdev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rootsdev+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Yes, co-occurences patterns where individuals have events in both places.
You're right that El Ingenio could have been a district/municipality that encompassed El Ingenio. I noticed in the geographical dictionary that Maipo's records going back in time can be found in El Ingenio. That's right. The pin showing on the google map indicates coordinates for El Ingenio. I'm certain that El Ingenio included a region in which Maipo was a part of.
For anyone studying the geography I would say that San Jose de Maipo is more to the East, but it has been hard to find any certain maps. I searched the SLC FamilySearch Library's Chilean paper maps to no avail. I looked in books with maps and it was something yet not very definitive (close up)--just found some big geographical jurisdictions such as Chile and Argentina how it was formerly for example. Justin York mentioned in a competition for a former Roots Tech challenge that with a lot of work he determined that specific point locations were the way to go (such as shown by a pin in Google) rather than defining the endless plethora of boundary divisions for each changing municipality or locality.
I just happened to notice that when I actually looked in records and hit a dead end, consulted Sister Gunther, realized how to better utilize the FamilySearch Catalog and searching, and when I consulted the gazetteer I later found a possible lead to an image showing beyond the previously dead end. So I figure that if 100 people find 10 generations all in Maipo and if we go through it all looking for co-occurrence patterns then it will be a possibly helpful hint that we could enable for the 101st person who may be confounded at his or her dead end. I sure wish I had this option when I started 10 years ago and it's still not here available which means someone has to figure out a way to pull data from the family trees enabling the possibility of this feature. I'd sure love to talk with someone or view online how this can be done.
And let us remember, there is often, with work, a legitimate and cosher way around things. I have a sense of faith that it can be done even though we need to see how. I was told once that you can't pull data this way from existing trees (which was a statement with conditions and with context), but I think we might be able to get special permission to do so if there currently is no FamilySearch way to do it.