Page 1 of 1

Updating Ward Boundaries to Reflect Existing Practice (Meetinghouse Locator Misinformation)

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 8:39 am
by guddatj
The LDS Meetinghouse Locator is assigning a specific set of streets to one ward when they should be assigned to a different ward in the same stake. Both wards have been in existence for several years. We are not sure how long the streets have been assigned to the wrong ward, but it seems like a recent phenomenon.

How do I go about reassigning these streets to the correct ward in the same stake?

Re: Updating Ward Boundaries to Reflect Existing Practice (Meetinghouse Locator Misinformation)

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 3:50 pm
by lajackson
guddatj wrote:How do I go about reassigning these streets to the correct ward in the same stake?
You might use the Suggest an Edit link at Maps. You might send a note through Feedback.

If neither of those work, you will probably have to have the stake president or clerk contact the Boundary Committee to look into it.

Re: Updating Ward Boundaries to Reflect Existing Practice (Meetinghouse Locator Misinformation)

Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 9:20 pm
by jonesrk
guddatj wrote:How do I go about reassigning these streets to the correct ward in the same stake?
Does the map show the boundary in the correct location for that street? Or are the boundaries actually showing different than you expect?

Re: Updating Ward Boundaries to Reflect Existing Practice (Meetinghouse Locator Misinformation)

Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:12 pm
by davesudweeks
We went through a boundary change a couple of years ago and the map did not match the information provided by the Stake to the ward members when the ward was split. It took them some months in working with SLC to get the boundary corrected, but that finally happened. I don't think this can be fixed from the ward level other than reporting it as stated above.

Re: Updating Ward Boundaries to Reflect Existing Practice (Meetinghouse Locator Misinformation)

Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:20 am
by guddatj
jonesrk wrote:
guddatj wrote:How do I go about reassigning these streets to the correct ward in the same stake?
Does the map show the boundary in the correct location for that street? Or are the boundaries actually showing different than you expect?
While this didn't seem to be a problem before, we looked at the boundaries and they are drawn wrong which is putting families in a ward they shouldn't be in and, therefore, creating the wrong information in the meeting house locator for these three particular streets. It seems funny that we didn't notice this before as both wards have been in existence for several years. Hard to believe the boundaries could have mysteriously changed on their own.

Re: Updating Ward Boundaries to Reflect Existing Practice (Meetinghouse Locator Misinformation)

Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:18 am
by jonesrk
guddatj wrote:
jonesrk wrote:
guddatj wrote:How do I go about reassigning these streets to the correct ward in the same stake?
Does the map show the boundary in the correct location for that street? Or are the boundaries actually showing different than you expect?
While this didn't seem to be a problem before, we looked at the boundaries and they are drawn wrong which is putting families in a ward they shouldn't be in and, therefore, creating the wrong information in the meeting house locator for these three particular streets. It seems funny that we didn't notice this before as both wards have been in existence for several years. Hard to believe the boundaries could have mysteriously changed on their own.
If the current boundaries are different than what you actually submitted for the change then you can likely just get a boundary correction processed. Otherwise you will need to submit a new boundary proposal.

Re: Updating Ward Boundaries to Reflect Existing Practice (Meetinghouse Locator Misinformation)

Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:29 am
by russellhltn
jonesrk wrote:If the current boundaries are different than what you actually submitted for the change then you can likely just get a boundary correction processed. Otherwise you will need to submit a new boundary proposal.
Or accept what the map shows as correct. ;)