Sort of the opposite of the thread "Directional" cities that lack a namesake (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21847.0): what places have a complete set of North, South, East, and West "children" that are related to the parent, being close by and in the (approximately) correct positions?
The only one I have found in Rand McNally is Acton, MA (near Concord), which has North Acton, South Acton, East Acton, and West Acton close by.
A near miss is Hoosick, NY. According to DeLorme, there are North Hoosick, East Hoosick, West Hoosick, and Southwest Hoosick, along with Hoosick Falls and Hoosick Junction.
Any other good examples?
In MA, you have a full set of Hamptons in Hampshire County, but no Hampton.
Quote from: GenExpwy on December 28, 2017, 01:56:26 AM
The only one I have found in Rand McNally is Acton, MA (near Concord), which has North Acton, South Acton, East Acton, and West Acton close by.
All four of those are part of Acton, not separate towns. They're not even CDPs or separate zip codes.
Quote from: 1 on December 28, 2017, 07:51:56 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on December 28, 2017, 01:56:26 AM
The only one I have found in Rand McNally is Acton, MA (near Concord), which has North Acton, South Acton, East Acton, and West Acton close by.
All four of those are part of Acton, not separate towns. They're not even CDPs or separate zip codes.
Ah. I was going to bring up Amherst, which has "villages" of North, South and East, but didn't because they weren't real townships.
OP should just look at a map of MA townships and cities. Easily available through a Google search.
Makes you wonder how Rand McNally chooses what "communities" get a dot on their maps, though.
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2017, 07:56:05 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 28, 2017, 07:51:56 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on December 28, 2017, 01:56:26 AM
The only one I have found in Rand McNally is Acton, MA (near Concord), which has North Acton, South Acton, East Acton, and West Acton close by.
All four of those are part of Acton, not separate towns. They're not even CDPs or separate zip codes.
Ah. I was going to bring up Amherst, which has "villages" of North, South and East, but didn't because they weren't real townships.
OP should just look at a map of MA townships and cities. Easily available through a Google search.
Towns, not townships.
The closest that I can get is in my own backyard. We have a West Chicago (IL), a North Chicago (IL), and an East Chicago (IN), but a South Chicago Heights (IL). While South Chicago does exist, it is more of a neighborhood in the main city rather than a separate town.
Quote from: 1 on December 28, 2017, 07:57:05 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2017, 07:56:05 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 28, 2017, 07:51:56 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on December 28, 2017, 01:56:26 AM
The only one I have found in Rand McNally is Acton, MA (near Concord), which has North Acton, South Acton, East Acton, and West Acton close by.
All four of those are part of Acton, not separate towns. They're not even CDPs or separate zip codes.
Ah. I was going to bring up Amherst, which has "villages" of North, South and East, but didn't because they weren't real townships.
OP should just look at a map of MA townships and cities. Easily available through a Google search.
Towns, not townships.
Tomato, tomato.
The thread title says community, and the OP says places. I think we can include townships under those definitions.
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2017, 07:56:05 AM
Makes you wonder how Rand McNally chooses what "communities" get a dot on their maps, though.
Space, often times.
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2017, 07:56:05 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 28, 2017, 07:51:56 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on December 28, 2017, 01:56:26 AM
The only one I have found in Rand McNally is Acton, MA (near Concord), which has North Acton, South Acton, East Acton, and West Acton close by.
All four of those are part of Acton, not separate towns. They're not even CDPs or separate zip codes.
Ah. I was going to bring up Amherst, which has "villages" of North, South and East, but didn't because they weren't real townships.
OP should just look at a map of MA townships and cities. Easily available through a Google search.
Makes you wonder how Rand McNally chooses what "communities" get a dot on their maps, though.
My criteria is places that are labeled on a published map.
It must be noted that all of those Actons are listed by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names as “Populated Places” (likewise with all the Hoosicks). This might be the definitive criteria.
https://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/
What about places (such as Acton, MA) where all the directional children lie within the town boundary?
They may even all be labeled, but no one thinks of them as separate. IMO, it is little more than an acknowledgement that the town has four quadrants. So does almost every other town. I think the "children" should all be the same type of entity (all towns, all villages, all cities, etc.) for it to be significant. I don't mean to dispute the OP's definition, rather, just questioning the prevailing mode of thought.
Of course, all of that is moot if the OP is looking for sets of children that lie within the original entity.
Quote from: webny99 on December 28, 2017, 01:11:29 PM
What about places (such as Acton, MA) where all the directional children lie within the town boundary?
They may even all be labeled, but no one thinks of them as separate. IMO, it is little more than an acknowledgement that the town has four quadrants. So does almost every other town. I think the "children" should all be the same type of entity (all towns, all villages, all cities, etc.) for it to be significant. I don't mean to dispute the OP's definition, rather, just questioning the prevailing mode of thought.
Of course, all of that is moot if the OP is looking for sets of children that lie within the original entity.
Well, the Federal Government
does think of them as separate. I'd bet that Rand McNally, DeLorme, and other mapmakers defer to the Board on Geographic Names as the arbiter of whether a place exists. Perhaps they were separate and distinct communities back in the 19th century, but in recent decades have turned into a continuous blur of development. In that case, you might say the BGN is listing places that no longer exist.
There seem to be three relevant Feature Classes in the Geographic Names Information System, if you want to run a query (http://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=gnispq):
Quote from: Feature Class DefinitionsCensus A statistical area delineated locally specifically for the tabulation of Census Bureau data (census designated place, census county division, unorganized territory, various types of American Indian/Alaska Native statistical areas). Distinct from Civil and Populated Place.
Civil A political division formed for administrative purposes (borough, county, incorporated place, municipio, parish, town, township). Distinct from Census and Populated Place.
Populated Place Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries. However, a populated place may have a corresponding "civil" record, the legal boundaries of which may or may not coincide with the perceived populated place. Distinct from Census and Civil classes.
So the question becomes:
If there are four (North, South, East, West) populated places inside of a larger, overarching civil division of the same name, does that qualify for this thread?
Quote from: GenExpwy on December 28, 2017, 01:56:26 AMThe only one I have found in Rand McNally is Acton, MA (near Concord), which has North Acton, South Acton, East Acton, and West Acton close by.
Funnily enough, it's London namesake has a full set of stations affixed with cardinal directions - the only place in the UK with that, along with having the most stations in the town with the town's name in the name - 7 (North A, South A, West A, East A, A Central, A Town, A Main Line).
Quote from: 1 on December 28, 2017, 07:57:05 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2017, 07:56:05 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 28, 2017, 07:51:56 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on December 28, 2017, 01:56:26 AM
The only one I have found in Rand McNally is Acton, MA (near Concord), which has North Acton, South Acton, East Acton, and West Acton close by.
All four of those are part of Acton, not separate towns. They're not even CDPs or separate zip codes.
Ah. I was going to bring up Amherst, which has "villages" of North, South and East, but didn't because they weren't real townships.
OP should just look at a map of MA townships and cities. Easily available through a Google search.
Towns, not townships.
South Acton and West Acton are the only parts of Acton that really exists as an actual entity, as in someone may say they live there or drive to there. The north and east portions are vapors.
Quote from: SectorZ on December 30, 2017, 02:35:05 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 28, 2017, 07:57:05 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2017, 07:56:05 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 28, 2017, 07:51:56 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on December 28, 2017, 01:56:26 AM
The only one I have found in Rand McNally is Acton, MA (near Concord), which has North Acton, South Acton, East Acton, and West Acton close by.
All four of those are part of Acton, not separate towns. They're not even CDPs or separate zip codes.
Ah. I was going to bring up Amherst, which has "villages" of North, South and East, but didn't because they weren't real townships.
OP should just look at a map of MA townships and cities. Easily available through a Google search.
Towns, not townships.
South Acton and West Acton are the only parts of Acton that really exists as an actual entity, as in someone may say they live there or drive to there. The north and east portions are vapors.
I guess the Board on Geographic Names database has a number of "ghost" places in it. I remember a story about "Idaho, NY" (southeastern-most corner of the town of Lima, Livingston County), that even the guy who lived there had never heard of it.
Just now, today's Ripley's Believe It or Not (http://www.gocomics.com/ripleysbelieveitornot/2017/12/31) says that there is a place called Wham, LA, that neither Google Earth nor the Rand McNally Commercial Atlas has heard of, but is in the BGN database.