Missing detail when I re-export RM7 free-form source citations
|
dartimon
I successfully imported my data from Roots Magic 7 some time ago. Now I am struggling with the export of FH7 generated GEDCOM back to Roots Magic 7 & 8. I have tried both GEDCOM 5.5 & the export GEDCOM plugin. In neither case does it pick up any of the citation detail, which leaves me with the source titles and no citations. I am a 'lumper' and have used RM7 'Freeform' template which has come across to FH in RootsMagic Collection. Incidentally I found the same difficulty exporting from FH7 to Heredis 2022 although the detail was retrievable from the notes sections and laboriously could be pasted back. In day to day use it makes little difference if I stick to using FH7 but I want to future proof my work and share it with some family members using GEDCOM in some form. Is there any way of doing this without redoing nearly 6000 citations one by one? Any advice or suggestions welcome. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
To be blunt, if you want to future proof your work and use GEDCOM then you must restrict all data entry to using standard GEDCOM features defined in the specification and avoid all custom features such as templated source citations, fact witnesses, sort dates, etc. However, even that does not guarantee success as few products implement the full GEDCOM specification.
The FHUG Knowledge Base gives advice about using features such as templated sources if you want to export to other products. It says don’t use them.
Can you go into more detail about what options you used in the Export Gedcom File plugin and exactly what citation data was missing? |
|
|
|
I feel qualified to comment here and would like to point out to the OP that RM7 will not import a GEDCOM from RM8 without problems. Rootsmagic is the problem and not just in respect of templated sources, I would suggest posting the import problem on a Rootsmagic forum. On Sun, 13 Nov 2022, 23:00 Mike Tate, <post@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
dartimon
Thank you for your comments Mike.
I conclude that as I cannot future proof my work easily GEDCOM formats then I will leave that for someone else to worry about in the future and leave a paper trail or at least digitised documents alongside the GEDCOM I produce with FamilyHistorian. As to my substantive point I got it wrong. I have run the FH data through the export GEDCOM plugin again using the recommended settings for RootsMagic and I now see that the citation information is present in RM7 within the comments section of Research Notes. When I imported the same GEDCOM into RM8 the citation information was again in the comments section of Research Notes. I never intended to use template sources as I always used RM Free Form sources but I understand these are another sort of template. My follow up question to you is: is there any way that I can convert my RootsMagic freeform citations into Family Historian Generic source citations except by redoing them one by one? |
|
|
|
dartimon
Thanks Vyger.
I know that you have moved across from RM. I have not attempted to import RM8 to RM7 as I am aware that there may be problems. The main reason for wanting to get my data into RM7 and from there to RM8 is for recording information about buildings, cemeteries, churches and for mapping place details and addresses. Are you able to share your workaround? Thank you |
|
|
|
I’m relieved that the Export Gedcom File plugin produces what you needed.
There has been much FHUG discussion about importing RootsMagic source citations into FH. Start with the FHUG Knowledge Base ‘Importing to Family Historian’ and its RootsMagic subsection. https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/importing-to-family-historian/ That has several links to other detailed import advice for RootsMagic. If those don’t answer your question, please start a new thread as this is a different topic.
|
|
|
|
Dartimon,
Place Details is one item which keeps my foot in the RM7 camp. As such recording and mapping of buildings, cemeteries, churches etc is available is three software packages I know of, I am hopeful this will also come to FH.
My workaround is to reference RM7 for mapping and adding any new site and those site details until such time as FH introduce a suitable solution, the RM data is only a visual reference as sadly the developers never fully implemented the feature with reporting and true proximity searching.
I note some Family Historian users combine Address and Place and geocode that single entity and should FH provide a solution in the future such an entry style should be easily split out.
Incidentally, FH state 100% Gedcom compatibility, I can inform you I have reported many Gedcom quirks to Rootsmagic in the past, sadly RM is not very compliant.
Jackson
From: family-historian@groups.io [mailto:family-historian@groups.io] On Behalf Of dartimon
Thanks Vyger. |
|
|
|
Please explain in a little more detail what you are hopeful of coming to FH. Is it geocode mapping of the Address field? As you say, the workaround is to put the full details in the Place field and leave Address blank.
There already is a plugin that can rearrange the Place and Address fields as desired. i.e. Split the combined Address & Place out into separate Place and Address fields. See the Plugin Store ‘Rearrange Address and Place Parts’.
However, I fail to see what this got to do with the Subject line of this thread.
|
|
|
|
Yes, making a convoluted combined site and place field works against online matches and makes place fields difficult to manage.
My comment was in direct reply to a question asked of me.
From: family-historian@groups.io [mailto:family-historian@groups.io] On Behalf Of Mike Tate
Sent: 14 November 2022 22:03 To: family-historian@groups.io Subject: Re: [family-historian] Missing detail when I re-export RM7 free-form source citations
Please explain in a little more detail what you are hopeful of coming to FH. Is it geocode mapping of the Address field? As you say, the workaround is to put the full details in the Place field and leave Address blank.
There already is a plugin that can rearrange the Place and Address fields as desired. i.e. Split the combined Address & Place out into separate Place and Address fields. See the Plugin Store ‘Rearrange Address and Place Parts’.
However, I fail to see what this got to do with the Subject line of this thread.
|
|
|