The list as it stands now includes Census Defined Places & even some subdivisions. Should those be included?
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Dave Pichotta <email@example.com> wrote:
I was thinking the closest city or town regardless of size, then maybe the nearest metro area that would be recognizable to the vast majority?
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014, Kate Hutton <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I agree with this, but please define "small." How small do you want? How well known?USGS practice is to list the small one first, then the nearest big one.KateOn Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:28 AM, <Fizzboy7@aol.com> 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.JasonIn a message dated 1/29/2014 9:39:39 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, email@example.com 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?Thanks!Kate