(One is) required to mention in the get the name of the place that the witnesses are standing there at the time of the signing: according to the count that we count here in the place ploni; and if he altered and mentioned the name of a different place--it is invalid; and if she married, she should not be divorced. But as regards the place where the scribe stands at the time of writing, there is no concern. Therefore, if it was written in one place and signed in another, he should mention the name of the place in which it was signed. And some say that also regarding the place where the scribe stands there is to be strict, and it is required that the scribe and witnesses should stand in one place.
[We] write the name of his city and the name of her city, and [we] do not write the name of the place of birth. And even though if he altered it it is not invalid, nevertheless it is better to not write [it], in order that they should not come to err and appear altered. And also [we] do not write the name of the domicile, because we are exiled and wandering and the place of our domicile is weak in our hands. But [we] do write the name of the place where the man stands: "haomed hayom b'masa plonis (who stands today in the city plonis)"--if he is found in the place of the signing; and if he is not found there, [we] do not write his place at all. And similarly with the woman; if she stands in the place of the signing of the get [we] write the place she stands: "haomedes hayom b'masa plonis (who stands today in the city plonis)"; and if not, [we] do not write her place at all. Gloss: And if he wrote the place of birth or domicile and did not alter, it is valid (Riva"sh Siman 314). And if he altered the place where they stand, some validate similar to the place of birth, because all matters that he is not required to write, even if he altered it, it is valid; and some invalidate (In the Beis Yosef he brought the two opinions), and in a needful situation there is [room to] be lenient. But if he altered the the place of domicile, it is invalid [according] to all the world (Chapter He who Sends) and even if she married, she should leave [the marriage]. And [we] write: "masa plonis (city plonis)" whether it is a large or small city; and he should not write "plonis masa (plonis the city)", rather: "masa plonis (city plonis)". And if he skipped the word "masa (city)", it is valid.
He should write: "v'chol shum d'is li u'l'asrai (and all names that are to me and to my city), and besides this, if there is to the city two names he should write: "masa plonis d'miskarya plonis (city plonis which is called plonis). Gloss: and he should not write a yud next to the mem (Seder Gittin). However, if he wrote a yud "d'miskaryah", it is valid (id.). And we are not accustomed to write: "v'chol shum d'is li u'l'asrai", rather if there are two names to the city, [we] write: "masa plonis d'miskaryah plonis oh d'miskaryah plonis" (Piskei mahar"ai Siman 185), and that is (also) the law if there are to the river two names. And if they have one name in the place of writing and another name in the place of giving, their law is similar to the names of the husband (Rosh and Ran Chapter He who Sends), and see infra Siman 129. And if there is to the city two names; one called in the mouths of jews and one in the language of the Kutim, the name that the jews call it is principal and [we] write according to the inference of their language (piskei Mahar"ai Siman 142 and Mahar"ik Shoresh 106). And if the two language are similar to one another, and the name that the jews call is none but an abbreviation, for example a city that the Kutim call "haredish" and the jews: "redish", we do not write but the jewish name (id. in his rulings Siman 151); but otherwise [we] write both: the jewish name first (so it is implied at id.) and regarding the Kutim's name: "d'miskaryah".
It is not necessary to write the name of the river, but the custom is to write it. If there are two or three rivers, all of them are written: "...who dwells on such river and such river." Rem"a: If he did not write the name of the river at all, or it [the name of the river] was changed, it is valid. And any river outside the boundaries of the city is not written at all, even if it uncertain. Even post facto, if it was written, there are those who invalidate it.
If in the city there are hot springs, and he wrote, "who lives on the well water," it is valid.
If the city is on the river, one does write about wells or springs--only the river. Rem"a: There are those who disagree, and they believe that one should write all the landmarks of the city. Such is the custom in those countries, which will be explained to you from the text of the document that I wrote at the end of section 154.
A city that has nothing but wells and ponds, these [the wells and ponds] should not be mentioned at all, as there should be no difference between documents written before they were dug and documents written after they were dug. Rem"a: Two rivers that empty into one another--if one loses its name close to the city [i.e. it fully merges into the other river], we only write the one [river]. If both rivers retain their names, we write both of them. If there is doubt regarding the matter, we only write one. Such is always done--it is preferable to create a doubt based on missing information than a doubt based on contradictory information.