Thursday, January 30, 2014

Re: [californiadisasters] descriptive location of earthquakes

I'd like to see a blend of both. I like obscure place-names but I also think common sense should always prevail. A quake out on the Carrizo Plain now will probably be measured from Simmler but most folks out there don't talk about Simmler or think in the context of that hole in the wall and most outsiders have never heard of it whereas nearby California Valley is more widely known and the locals use that place more. Pasadena and NOT East Pasadena should be used. On the other hand, obscure place names connect us to the past which is important... but most peeps don't want to have to Google place-names right after an earthquake.

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Kate Hutton <> wrote:

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?


Check out
Read my blog at
My Facebook:
Linkedin profile:
Follow me on Twitter @DisasterKim


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