Re: FH V7
I admit it is a bit of a stab in the dark, but when FH does not 'recognise' a tag it makes it 'valid' GEDCOM by adding an underscore prefix. So if for some reason the conversion process did not like the FAMC it would become _FAMC. But it is a guess.toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
From: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce
Sent: 13 December 2020 21:49
To: Family Historian Groups.io mailing list <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [family-historian] FH V7
To be honest Mike, if you'll pardon me adding my three pennorth,
**assuming** that the error messages tell the truth, then it's the
that's been detected as in error *first*, and the PEDI lines below have been excluded *as a consequence* of the _FAMC issue. Rather than the other way round as your first thought was.
I would suggest that the record 38545 is the cleanest as that's just a straight "PEDI Adopted", implying both parents have adopted the child.
That ought surely to work no problem - indeed the Sample Project (at least in v6) has FAMC (not _FAMC) and PEDI lines for straight adoption. And yet it's a problem here.
In my 5.5 format file, the _PEDI occurs only when the parents each have a different relationship to the child - e.g. birth mother and step father. But in all cases, it's just a FAMC, not a _FAMC above.
IF IF IF I'm right then it's the "1 _FAMC" that's the cause of the error, rather than the PEDI lines. But how it got to be _FAMC rather than FAMC, I have no idea, other than to say that, given the Sample Project, it can't be a PEDI line that's caused it. Surely.... (I am, of course, assuming that there's nothing seriously awry with the adjacent, omitted lines.)
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 19:33, Mike Tate <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: