Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Re: [californiadisasters] descriptive location of earthquakes

I agree, the closest city or town first then the larger place names after. It makes me laugh seeing Fontana or Rancho Cucamonga listed as the "greater LA area" 
Just my 2 cents.


On Wednesday, January 29, 2014, <> wrote:

Possibly the most helpful and useful would be listing the actual city closest to the earthquake, then listing the bigger towns most people are familiar with.   Although there's some gray areas, like your "East Pasadena" example.    Once people hear the word "Pasadena," it narrows the whole area down pretty quickly.
In a message dated 1/29/2014 9:39:39 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, writes:

When Caltech or the USGS posts an earthquake location, there is a descriptive location as well as a latitude & longitude.  I am trying to make a case the gazetteer (town list) contains too many census designated places (unincorporated areas) & very small towns that most people have not heard of.  Sometimes well known towns are omitted in deference to obscure neighbors (for example, East Pasadena is listed, but Pasadena is not).

What do you think?  Are you scratching your heads over some of the places that come up, or would you rather see them?



Be sure to check out our Links Section at
Please join our Discussion Group at for topical but extended discussions started here or for less topical but nonetheless relevant messages.

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe


No comments:

Post a Comment