Date   

Re: Family Historian

Mike Tate
 

I would advise against splitting your tree.

Other users have done that and later wished they had not.

 

Perhaps if you could explain why you are having trouble finding outstanding information we could advise.

For example, have you used Named Lists or To Do Tasks to manage the outstanding research?

The FHUG Knowledge Base has advice on Planning and Tracking Your Research:

https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/planning-and-tracking-your-research/

 

Presumably, you have used Source Citations to ratify all the facts that you have collected.

They identify what facts have been proven and those that need research.

 

Mike Tate

 


Re: Family Historian

Victor Markham
 

Yasmin under no circumstances would I ever split my tree. All names I have are connected whether direct or not there is a connection.
If you want to split your tree keep it as a separate tree which FH allows you to but still keep your main tree.

Victor

On 22 Aug 2021, at 12:05, Yasmin Gibbins <yasmin.gibbins@...> wrote:

Good Morning

 

My Grandfather was one of 13 children over the years I have collected information on their marriages, their children, and their children’s marriages etc. My file is now becoming a pain as I am having trouble finding what information is outstanding.

 

I would like to split my tree to just show my grandfather his siblings and their partners. Not their children and children’s children.

 

I am using Family Historian 5 and looking to upgrade to Version 7, can anybody tell me if there is a way of doing this in either version. I have managed to work out how to spilt the tree to show just my direct ancestors but I want to show a limited amount regarding their families.

 

I am getting bogged down in not knowing what information I have and what information I need to find.

 

Most of my ancestors appear to have had large families on both sides and I have to admit I got carried away when I started my research and kept going off sideways and on tangents. Now I reap the benefits in as much as it is becoming unmanageable. My other option is to start a new file and begin putting in the information all over again not an option I want to take.

 

I hope this makes sense. I would be grateful for any advice or ideas anyone can give me.

 

Best Wishes

Yasmin Gibbins


Re: Family Historian

Nicola Byrnes
 

Not sure if it’s what you’re after but I copied a section of my main tree and created a new project with it via Gedcom. That way I could concentrate on those particular lines whilst still having it as part of the main tree. The only issue is that you’d need to update the main tree every time you add info to the ’new’ one, which could be a faff.

Nicola

On 22 Aug 2021, at 12:05, Yasmin Gibbins <yasmin.gibbins@...> wrote:

Good Morning
 
My Grandfather was one of 13 children over the years I have collected information on their marriages, their children, and their children’s marriages etc. My file is now becoming a pain as I am having trouble finding what information is outstanding.
 
I would like to split my tree to just show my grandfather his siblings and their partners. Not their children and children’s children.
 
I am using Family Historian 5 and looking to upgrade to Version 7, can anybody tell me if there is a way of doing this in either version. I have managed to work out how to spilt the tree to show just my direct ancestors but I want to show a limited amount regarding their families.
 
I am getting bogged down in not knowing what information I have and what information I need to find.
 
Most of my ancestors appear to have had large families on both sides and I have to admit I got carried away when I started my research and kept going off sideways and on tangents. Now I reap the benefits in as much as it is becoming unmanageable. My other option is to start a new file and begin putting in the information all over again not an option I want to take.
 
I hope this makes sense. I would be grateful for any advice or ideas anyone can give me.
 
Best Wishes
Yasmin Gibbins


Family Historian

Yasmin Gibbins
 

Good Morning

 

My Grandfather was one of 13 children over the years I have collected information on their marriages, their children, and their children’s marriages etc. My file is now becoming a pain as I am having trouble finding what information is outstanding.

 

I would like to split my tree to just show my grandfather his siblings and their partners. Not their children and children’s children.

 

I am using Family Historian 5 and looking to upgrade to Version 7, can anybody tell me if there is a way of doing this in either version. I have managed to work out how to spilt the tree to show just my direct ancestors but I want to show a limited amount regarding their families.

 

I am getting bogged down in not knowing what information I have and what information I need to find.

 

Most of my ancestors appear to have had large families on both sides and I have to admit I got carried away when I started my research and kept going off sideways and on tangents. Now I reap the benefits in as much as it is becoming unmanageable. My other option is to start a new file and begin putting in the information all over again not an option I want to take.

 

I hope this makes sense. I would be grateful for any advice or ideas anyone can give me.

 

Best Wishes

Yasmin Gibbins


Re: Mapping errors / place name editing with search and replace plugin

Mike Tate
 

There is another group offering FH support; The FH User Group.
The FHUG that has Forums and a Knowledge Base.
See https://www.fhug.org.uk/
The Knowledge Base has much advice such as Importing to Family Historian:
https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/importing-to-family-historian/
That has a section for Import from Legacy Family Tree (LFT) but omits one bit of advice under the 'On the Options tab:' bullet list:
• Do NOT tick the Export Shared Events as regular Events option so that Shared Events are migrated as Fact Witnesses

I hope that is helpful.
Mike Tate


Re: Mapping errors / place name editing with search and replace plugin

Teresa Goatham
 

Thanks Mike.

Have now successfully converted Co. to County and started refreshing geocoding: it's looking a lot better.

Move from Legacy to FH: had you anything particular in mind?

I was planning for a long time, so hopefully have covered most things, but even so started with my small GEDCOM  (less than 4000 people) rather than my larger / main - c. 40,000, partly so less tidying to do if I have overlooked some things.

Teresa

PS Very grateful for your plugins - don't think I could have moved to FH without them.

On 20/08/2021 18:36, Mike Tate wrote:
Welcome Teresa,
Yes, to get the best geocoding does often need some tweaking to place names.

The reason the Search and Replace plugin does not work is that the Name of a Place record is not a Place field.
That is explained in the plugin Help & Advice under Usage Examples for Place Name Changes that says:
"set Search Scope: Place Records (_PLAC) and tick All other Text fields but clear all the other Basic Filters. That ensures both the Place name and Standardized fields are changed but leaves all other fields unaltered."

It is possible to copy all the Place Names to the Standardized field but will need a small custom Plugin.

Unfortunately, it is not possible for the Search and Replace plugin to operate on just the Standardized field, but it can operate on just the Place Name field by selecting Record Names/Titles Place Name (_PLAC.TEXT).
So the solution is to convert all the Place Names until geocoding is better, copy them to the Standardized field, then convert just the Place Name fields back to your abbreviated format.

An alternative is the Map Life Facts plugin, which can sync with Place records and a few quick experiments with your 'problem' Place names showed that it correctly geocoded Jefferson Co., St. Lawrence Co., etc, in the north of New York state.

BTW: There are some settings you may have overlooked when exporting GEDCOM from Legacy for FH.

Mike Tate







--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


Re: Mapping errors / place name editing with search and replace plugin

Mike Tate
 

Welcome Teresa,
Yes, to get the best geocoding does often need some tweaking to place names.

The reason the Search and Replace plugin does not work is that the Name of a Place record is not a Place field.
That is explained in the plugin Help & Advice under Usage Examples for Place Name Changes that says:
"set Search Scope: Place Records (_PLAC) and tick All other Text fields but clear all the other Basic Filters. That ensures both the Place name and Standardized fields are changed but leaves all other fields unaltered."

It is possible to copy all the Place Names to the Standardized field but will need a small custom Plugin.

Unfortunately, it is not possible for the Search and Replace plugin to operate on just the Standardized field, but it can operate on just the Place Name field by selecting Record Names/Titles Place Name (_PLAC.TEXT).
So the solution is to convert all the Place Names until geocoding is better, copy them to the Standardized field, then convert just the Place Name fields back to your abbreviated format.

An alternative is the Map Life Facts plugin, which can sync with Place records and a few quick experiments with your 'problem' Place names showed that it correctly geocoded Jefferson Co., St. Lawrence Co., etc, in the north of New York state.

BTW: There are some settings you may have overlooked when exporting GEDCOM from Legacy for FH.

Mike Tate


Mapping errors / place name editing with search and replace plugin

Teresa Goatham
 

I recently imported a GEDCOM from Legacy to FH and am just getting used to it. My GEDCOM was one covering most of the USA Gothams (part of a One-Name Study). I didn't have any places geocoded in Legacy. After watching the short FH mapping video I realised how useful it would be to geocode them.

The auto geocoding seemed at first to work fine. That is, till I started checking the places. Not a few but most were wrongly geocoded. According to the FH help this should only happen with historic places or places with errors. I am sure I have both but mostly my places are correct / current, it was just bad geocoding.

One problem I can see is that I have abbreviated 'County' to 'Co.'. And the geocoding software it is obsessed with Colorado (where few if any Gothams have ever lived).

So it prefers to think 'Jefferson Co., New York, USA ' means 'Jefferson County, Colorado, United States of America' rather than 'Jefferson County, New York, United States of America'!

e.g if I put one mis-located place, 'Madison Barracks, Jefferson Co., New York, USA' in the location field it offers just

Madison Ave., New York, NY, United States of America OR
Jefferson County, Colorado, United States of America

BUT if I change Co. to County (i.e. 'Madison Barracks, Jefferson County, New York, USA') it offers before the above 2:
Madison Barracks Street, Fort Drum, NY 13603, New York, United States of America
- which I think is the location I want!

This morning I changed a small number of places in  'St. Lawrence Co.' to 'Saint Lawrence County' ('St.' for 'Saint' completely threw the geocoding!), refreshed the geocoding and the results improved dramatically.

Now I would like to change all the 'Co.,'s to 'County,'. I have tried doing this using the 'search and replace' plugin but it didn't work. I must be doing something wrong but I can't work out what? (image attached)

Also, it has occurred to me it might be better to change Co. to County in standardized place names. (Not a big issue, but I am trying to stop place names becoming too long.) If I'd have to populate the standardized place name fields manually it's not worth it, but could I fill all standardized fields from the the place names as I currently have them? (I have not yet entered any standardized names so no danger of overwriting). And if I can do this, is there then any way of using search and replace to ONLY update the standardized places?

Many thanks in anticipation,
Teresa



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


Re: Report shows differently to fact page

Mike Tate
 

Miriam, firstly what we are discussing is a fault in FH for which there is no ideal solution until CP fix it.

 

There are several ways to get a Note into a Narrative report sentence as discussed in the FHUG Forum thread:

 

  1. In the Report Options tick the ‘Inc. Event/Attr Notes’ option and the Note is added as an extra sentence but without Source Citation footnote superscripts.

  2. In the Sentence Template use the {note} code to embed the Note within the sentence (but if followed by {date} gets upset in the report).
    The sentence shown in the Facts tab Sentence box is perfectly correct. Only the Report sentence exhibits the fault.
    Narrative reports detect the above tick option and {note} code to prevent the Note from being shown twice.

  3. In the Sentence Template use the %FACT.NOTE2% code to embed the Note within the sentence and avoid the {date} problem.
    Narrative reports do not detect this code, so if ‘Inc. Event/Attr Notes’ is ticked the Note appears twice.
    If the Note text is very long then this workaround may not include all of the Note text.

 

I hope that explains the situation.

 

Mike Tate

 


Re: Report shows differently to fact page

Miriam Smith
 

Thank you to all for your suggestions.  The reason I put the date in a different place is because I get sick of it being at the beginning ALL the time - especially if the sentence is short, with more short ones following.  Some of my 'notes' are quite long and detailed and I haven't had any problems previously with what order the sentence pieces were in.  I played around with my John Williams and put the date in various spots as you can see from the attachment.  I screen dumped relevant info to demonstrate what structure the sentence was and what it looked like on FH and the report.  I am unable to 'copy' as when you click in the structure part, it only copies the structure, not the sentence it makes, and some of the sentences don't all fit into the little space.  I note that every sentence is dodgy - BUT I also noticed that I have "financial" sentences.  When I put a note in a marriage sentence, it all works.
I did some further work on John Williams and realised that a "financial" fact was something that had come over from TMG.  So I created an identical "misc" fact but it still had the same errors.  I then used your %FACT.NOTE2%, Mike, but it just added another sentence using the "note" only.  (I haven't screen dumped that though)
I admit I used my "financial" and "legal" facts a lot in TMG and they have all come over, but I hadn't noticed previously that these sentences were 'up the creek' so to speak.

However, I have made an amazing discovery - I noticed that on another person I had a very big note (a transcription of his will actually) and it was in the report but the {note} was not in the sentence structure.  So I went back to John Williams and removed the {note} from one of the sentence structures and the note printed in the report.  But it didn't show it in the sentence where the structure is.  Previously I have always had to have the {note} in the sentence structure otherwise it didn't show, or print.

I will raise an issue with Calico Pie but I think it will not be as straightforward as I originally thought as I always check what my sentence "says" before moving on, so that I believe it will be correct when printed.

It still leaves me with what to do in the meantime, as whatever needs doing will be a huge job.  But again, thank you all and Mike - I probably wouldn't have picked up the previous thread as even when I read it I wouldn't have remembered it when I had my issue.


Re: Reference a section of place

Edward Sneithe
 

I want the point ability since I want to locate very closely where ancestors lived, traveled, etc. One task I have that I have not yet found a suitable platform is to be able to map  very specific migration pattern. I also need to add waypoints to adjust the migration path so I don't get unrealistic results. If I want to map Miami to Boston it takes a path out over the Atlantic when in reality the path would be through Florida, Alabama, Carolinas, etc.

Some people even want to go as fine as the location of a single grave in a cemetery

So far I can get the ability to map a path or reasonable maps but not both in the same product. It would be nice if I could map a path in FH.


I can adjust FH data to align with what I want without the waypoints.



On Monday, August 16, 2021, 01:58:44 PM EDT, David F <fhug-forum@...> wrote:


Is the basic problem that geocoding "puts a pin in a map"?

Places are areas, whilst addresses are much closer to points.

If you want to check who lived in a house through a period of time, or who were close neighbours, you probably want point-mapping (which either has to be "full-address" based or manually adjusted). If you are trying to show general migration (say from "Ireland" to "USA" or even "Cork" to "New York State") you probably want area-mapping.

Reducing an area to a point can be misleading; USA gets reduced to a point somewhere in Kansas, Australia gets reduced to somewhere close to Alice Springs.

Trouble is area-mapping requires definition of numerous points on sometimes complex boundaries - unless the system can piggy back on another existing mapping system that already understands areas. Even then, genealogists will want to define places like "Yorkshire, West Riding" which modern mapping systems no longer recognise!

David


Re: Reference a section of place

David F
 

Is the basic problem that geocoding "puts a pin in a map"?

Places are areas, whilst addresses are much closer to points.

If you want to check who lived in a house through a period of time, or who were close neighbours, you probably want point-mapping (which either has to be "full-address" based or manually adjusted). If you are trying to show general migration (say from "Ireland" to "USA" or even "Cork" to "New York State") you probably want area-mapping.

Reducing an area to a point can be misleading; USA gets reduced to a point somewhere in Kansas, Australia gets reduced to somewhere close to Alice Springs.

Trouble is area-mapping requires definition of numerous points on sometimes complex boundaries - unless the system can piggy back on another existing mapping system that already understands areas. Even then, genealogists will want to define places like "Yorkshire, West Riding" which modern mapping systems no longer recognise!

David


Re: Reference a section of place

Victor Markham
 

Of course it is the West (East or North) Riding of Yorkshire but for address purposes on FH West, East or North simplifies things.

Writing letters in those far off days people simply wrote East, North or West and that is sufficient clarity

Victor

On 16/08/2021 6:34 pm, Andrew Braid wrote:
Victor

Sheffield has never been in West Yorkshire. It was in the West Riding of Yorkshire until reorganisation.

Yorkshire is challenging from a geographic standpoint. Formerly three ridings and an Ainsty and now North, East, West and South plus Humberside and Teesside. And it's all about to change again

Like you I always use the old names.

Andrew 

On Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 18:13 Victor Markham via groups.io <victor=markham.me.uk@groups.io> wrote:

When I enter a place name in England I always give the place name it's full name.

When it copmes to county names I always stick to the ancien boundary names. What we see today are known as administration boundary.

As an example let's say Sheffield. If someone lived thewre in the 1960's or earlier they would be in West Yorkshire. When the boundary changed Sheffield became South Yorkshire, which is an admin boudary. I wouldn't bother to change thinghs from West to South. This sort of thing has happened all over the country so I stick to the old names. The boundaries are going through another change so it would mean one has to change things again if they do that.

This is how I do place names

anytown, anycounty, England (in one row)

Followed by any street in the second row

Both rows are separate on FH so it is easy to add the two addresses

I would put the full name of the place like Kingston Upon Hull not just Hull

When it comes to Yorkshire I would add East, North or West to Yorkshire. There are similar place names in say East Yorkshire and North Yorkshire (Scalby fr example) so one needs to know which is the right place

Victor

On 16/08/2021 5:57 pm, Edward Sneithe via groups.io wrote:
Mike,

I was thinking that if we use  place field like Address, City, County, State, Country that we re dependent on properly placed commas for missing data. I know you can't speak for FH but it would seem nice that when we are entering a place that we could get a formatted scree for all the possibilities for place and then FH would properly format the place field with comma for missing data.

Just a thought. It would make entering and extracting individual pieces more reliable

On Monday, August 16, 2021, 12:46:03 PM EDT, Mike Tate <post@...> wrote:


Yes, the FHUG Knowledge Base ‘Working with Places and Addresses’ explains similar options:

https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/working-with-places-and-addresses-for-new-users/

 

Family Historian allows some deviation from the GEDCOM specification, as do most products.

IMO the omission of Address from geocoding was a mistake.

 

I advise that you format your Place and Address data to suit your use of FH rather than adhere to the GEDCOM specification too closely.

 

Mike Tate

 

 


Re: Reference a section of place

Andrew Braid
 

Victor

Sheffield has never been in West Yorkshire. It was in the West Riding of Yorkshire until reorganisation.

Yorkshire is challenging from a geographic standpoint. Formerly three ridings and an Ainsty and now North, East, West and South plus Humberside and Teesside. And it's all about to change again

Like you I always use the old names.

Andrew 

On Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 18:13 Victor Markham via groups.io <victor=markham.me.uk@groups.io> wrote:

When I enter a place name in England I always give the place name it's full name.

When it copmes to county names I always stick to the ancien boundary names. What we see today are known as administration boundary.

As an example let's say Sheffield. If someone lived thewre in the 1960's or earlier they would be in West Yorkshire. When the boundary changed Sheffield became South Yorkshire, which is an admin boudary. I wouldn't bother to change thinghs from West to South. This sort of thing has happened all over the country so I stick to the old names. The boundaries are going through another change so it would mean one has to change things again if they do that.

This is how I do place names

anytown, anycounty, England (in one row)

Followed by any street in the second row

Both rows are separate on FH so it is easy to add the two addresses

I would put the full name of the place like Kingston Upon Hull not just Hull

When it comes to Yorkshire I would add East, North or West to Yorkshire. There are similar place names in say East Yorkshire and North Yorkshire (Scalby fr example) so one needs to know which is the right place

Victor

On 16/08/2021 5:57 pm, Edward Sneithe via groups.io wrote:
Mike,

I was thinking that if we use  place field like Address, City, County, State, Country that we re dependent on properly placed commas for missing data. I know you can't speak for FH but it would seem nice that when we are entering a place that we could get a formatted scree for all the possibilities for place and then FH would properly format the place field with comma for missing data.

Just a thought. It would make entering and extracting individual pieces more reliable

On Monday, August 16, 2021, 12:46:03 PM EDT, Mike Tate <post@...> wrote:


Yes, the FHUG Knowledge Base ‘Working with Places and Addresses’ explains similar options:

https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/working-with-places-and-addresses-for-new-users/

 

Family Historian allows some deviation from the GEDCOM specification, as do most products.

IMO the omission of Address from geocoding was a mistake.

 

I advise that you format your Place and Address data to suit your use of FH rather than adhere to the GEDCOM specification too closely.

 

Mike Tate

 

 


Re: Reference a section of place

Victor Markham
 

When I enter a place name in England I always give the place name it's full name.

When it copmes to county names I always stick to the ancien boundary names. What we see today are known as administration boundary.

As an example let's say Sheffield. If someone lived thewre in the 1960's or earlier they would be in West Yorkshire. When the boundary changed Sheffield became South Yorkshire, which is an admin boudary. I wouldn't bother to change thinghs from West to South. This sort of thing has happened all over the country so I stick to the old names. The boundaries are going through another change so it would mean one has to change things again if they do that.

This is how I do place names

anytown, anycounty, England (in one row)

Followed by any street in the second row

Both rows are separate on FH so it is easy to add the two addresses

I would put the full name of the place like Kingston Upon Hull not just Hull

When it comes to Yorkshire I would add East, North or West to Yorkshire. There are similar place names in say East Yorkshire and North Yorkshire (Scalby fr example) so one needs to know which is the right place

Victor

On 16/08/2021 5:57 pm, Edward Sneithe via groups.io wrote:
Mike,

I was thinking that if we use  place field like Address, City, County, State, Country that we re dependent on properly placed commas for missing data. I know you can't speak for FH but it would seem nice that when we are entering a place that we could get a formatted scree for all the possibilities for place and then FH would properly format the place field with comma for missing data.

Just a thought. It would make entering and extracting individual pieces more reliable

On Monday, August 16, 2021, 12:46:03 PM EDT, Mike Tate <post@...> wrote:


Yes, the FHUG Knowledge Base ‘Working with Places and Addresses’ explains similar options:

https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/working-with-places-and-addresses-for-new-users/

 

Family Historian allows some deviation from the GEDCOM specification, as do most products.

IMO the omission of Address from geocoding was a mistake.

 

I advise that you format your Place and Address data to suit your use of FH rather than adhere to the GEDCOM specification too closely.

 

Mike Tate

 

 


Re: Reference a section of place

Edward Sneithe
 

Mike,

I was thinking that if we use  place field like Address, City, County, State, Country that we re dependent on properly placed commas for missing data. I know you can't speak for FH but it would seem nice that when we are entering a place that we could get a formatted scree for all the possibilities for place and then FH would properly format the place field with comma for missing data.

Just a thought. It would make entering and extracting individual pieces more reliable

On Monday, August 16, 2021, 12:46:03 PM EDT, Mike Tate <post@...> wrote:


Yes, the FHUG Knowledge Base ‘Working with Places and Addresses’ explains similar options:

https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/working-with-places-and-addresses-for-new-users/

 

Family Historian allows some deviation from the GEDCOM specification, as do most products.

IMO the omission of Address from geocoding was a mistake.

 

I advise that you format your Place and Address data to suit your use of FH rather than adhere to the GEDCOM specification too closely.

 

Mike Tate

 

 


Re: Reference a section of place

Mike Tate
 

Yes, the FHUG Knowledge Base ‘Working with Places and Addresses’ explains similar options:

https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/working-with-places-and-addresses-for-new-users/

 

Family Historian allows some deviation from the GEDCOM specification, as do most products.

IMO the omission of Address from geocoding was a mistake.

 

I advise that you format your Place and Address data to suit your use of FH rather than adhere to the GEDCOM specification too closely.

 

Mike Tate

 

 


Re: Reference a section of place

Edward Sneithe
 

If I read the GECOM 5.5.1 and the new 7.0.0 it seems that the place should contain a location like city, county, state, country. The address field should contain the entire address, multi line address as it would appear on a mailing so I assume that would be street address, city, county, state, country, zip code

Gedcom 5.5.1 page 58 says place:

"This shows the jurisdictional entities that are named in a sequence from the lowest to the highest
jurisdiction. The jurisdictions are separated by commas, and any jurisdiction's name that is missing is
still accounted for by a comma."

The same standard says this about Address:

ADDRESS_STRUCTURE:=
n ADDR <ADDRESS_LINE> {1:1} p.41
+1 CONT <ADDRESS_LINE> {0:3} p.41
+1 ADR1 <ADDRESS_LINE1> {0:1} p.41
+1 ADR2 <ADDRESS_LINE2> {0:1} p.41
+1 ADR3 <ADDRESS_LINE3> {0:1} p.41
+1 CITY <ADDRESS_CITY> {0:1} p.41
+1 STAE <ADDRESS_STATE> {0:1} p.42
+1 POST <ADDRESS_POSTAL_CODE> {0:1} p.41
+1 CTRY <ADDRESS_COUNTRY> {0:1} p.41

"The address structure should be formed as it would appear on a mailing label using the ADDR and
the CONT lines to form the address structure."


 in 5.5.1 the place field is described like this on page 65:

"A comma-separated list of jurisdictional titles, which has the same number of
elements and in the same order as the PLAC structure. Entries should be in an
order where each is typically subsumed by the next.
Example — The following represents Baltimore, a city that is not within a
county.

2 PLAC Baltimore, , Maryland, USA
3 FORM City, County, State, Country"


From page 37 of the new 7.0.0 GEDCOM Standard an address is:

"A specific building, plot, or location. The payload is the full formatted address
as it would appear on a mailing label, including appropriate line breaks (encoded
using CONT (p.60) tags). The expected order of address components varies
by region; the address should be organized as expected by the addressed region."

It does not reference the person etc. at that location or naming. If I follow that standard then from my example I would have :

Place: East Hampton, Connecticut

and the address:

St Patrick,
47 West High St,
East Hampton, Connecticut, USA

including all the line breaks. If I follow this standard then the geocoding will not get the exact location but just the city location. The exact location is in the Address field. If I use this model then the geocoding is very general but the location can be dragged to the correct position thus manually making up for the lack of a street address in the place field. But that also has the drawback of not allowing for multiple locations in the same city.

It looks like the only solution for geocoding is to include the street address in the place field and extracting the components with FH functions.

I have also tried the use of labelled text in the note field, surrounded by privacy symbols like:

[[
Church: St Patricks
]]

and then in a sentence extracting the various components using FH functions.

If we are to follow the GEDCOM standard then it appears that the geocoding would be better placed on the address field rather than the Place field. It would be nice if FH gave us an option to select either or both to use  in geocoding so that 99.99% of my place fields only have City, County, State, Country and the address field has the specific street  address. 

A lot to contemplate. FH does have a way to adjust for any of these scenarios except for geocoding.

Should something like this be better defined and go on a wish list?

I hope I have not confused anyone.

On Monday, August 16, 2021, 05:57:26 AM EDT, <j.van.beek@...> wrote:


FH (especially with help of the numerous plugins) offers indeed a multitude of ways to implement users ideas, wishes etc.

For me this means that I've to ask myself why would I want what?". My answers to that question for the Place considerations are:
1. Places are about two things: naming and location on earth. The naming may change over time while the location stays the same. This is neatly solved in FH by using the standardized name and using the geo-location of that name. Sometimes we have Places with the same name but at a different location. Here also the standardized name and the (in this case different) geo-location help us out. In this case it's usually wise to add extra information to the name (e.g. county, province etc.) to set the names visually apart.
2. To not clutter up the narratives, I want the names to be as short as possible. So, no extensive use of state, county, province, country etc. info if, from the context of the narrative, it's obvious where the Place is expected to be located. And, due to point 1 there's always an exact reference to the location on earth.
3. Sometimes interesting information about the Place is available (e.g. the name of the hospital where a child was born, the name of a graveyard, the name of a church where people married etc. etc.). I'd like to add that in to the "Place name" to make it easily accessible within FH (see my solution for this in my former post).

For what it's worth: up until now the above approach has served me well with thousands of Places in The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, the UK, the USA and a few other countries. :)


Re: Report shows differently to fact page

Mike Tate
 

Miriam, this and related problems were discussed 10 days ago in the FHUG Forums under ‘Fact definitions & unwanted carriage returns’.

See https://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=19695

It appears to be a fault that has arisen in FH v7.0 when using the {note} code followed by the {date} code.

As a workaround, you can replace {note} with {%FACT.NOTE2%} until the fault is fixed.

I suggest you report your specific symptoms to Calico Pie via their http://www.calico-pie.com/osticket/open.php support ticket system.

 

Mike Tate

 


Re: Reference a section of place

@JoopvB
 

FH (especially with help of the numerous plugins) offers indeed a multitude of ways to implement users ideas, wishes etc.

For me this means that I've to ask myself why would I want what?". My answers to that question for the Place considerations are:
1. Places are about two things: naming and location on earth. The naming may change over time while the location stays the same. This is neatly solved in FH by using the standardized name and using the geo-location of that name. Sometimes we have Places with the same name but at a different location. Here also the standardized name and the (in this case different) geo-location help us out. In this case it's usually wise to add extra information to the name (e.g. county, province etc.) to set the names visually apart.
2. To not clutter up the narratives, I want the names to be as short as possible. So, no extensive use of state, county, province, country etc. info if, from the context of the narrative, it's obvious where the Place is expected to be located. And, due to point 1 there's always an exact reference to the location on earth.
3. Sometimes interesting information about the Place is available (e.g. the name of the hospital where a child was born, the name of a graveyard, the name of a church where people married etc. etc.). I'd like to add that in to the "Place name" to make it easily accessible within FH (see my solution for this in my former post).

For what it's worth: up until now the above approach has served me well with thousands of Places in The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, the UK, the USA and a few other countries. :)

741 - 760 of 4744