26 replies to this topic

[Vyger]

FTR, the release of RM5 has left me very disappointed in the lack of development of Place Management, perhaps my expectations were just too high

Renee, if you have agreement could you please pin this topic with the others, Places seem to be close to a lot of users hearts from the discussions I have read.

[APerson]

FTR, the release of RM5 has left me very disappointed in the lack of development of Place Management, perhaps my expectations were just too high

Renee, if you have agreement could you please pin this topic with the others, Places seem to be close to a lot of users hearts from the discussions I have read.

I agree, Place Management should have been a priority and one that still needs to be addressed.

[Ludlow Bay]

I agree, Place Management should have been a priority and one that still needs to be addressed.

Maybe you can pay for that luxury in Version 6 .... in a couple of years.

[John James]

Maybe you can pay for that luxury in Version 6 .... in a couple of years.

What about if i just keep this 20 bucks in the drawer

[APerson]

What about if i just keep this 20 bucks in the drawer

Good idea

[GreenwoodKL]

Evidently, Renee does NOT have agreement as this topic does not appear to be pinned. I too expected Place Management to be a huge priority and definitely an integral part of the next "major" revision which seemed to turn out to be a bust. Seems more of a "let's stick version 5 on it and we'll sell more and not seem so outdated" approach. I, for one, am less concerned about historical county boundaries or events within a specified distance than to clean up my huge list of unwieldy places into place details. Wonder when the utility will be out for that?

[John James]

Evidently, Renee does NOT have agreement as this topic does not appear to be pinned. I too expected Place Management to be a huge priority and definitely an integral part of the next "major" revision which seemed to turn out to be a bust. Seems more of a "let's stick version 5 on it and we'll sell more and not seem so outdated" approach. I, for one, am less concerned about historical county boundaries or events within a specified distance than to clean up my huge list of unwieldy places into place details. Wonder when the utility will be out for that?

It was interesting that the Place List got 28 seconds mention on the Whats new in RM5 webinar. For a topic which attracted so much discussion and wishes for improvements i can only conclude that the development compass much be broken in some way.

Not to worry though, if it is broken Rennee will have a note of it in the Tracking System

[leeirons]

What particular functionality are you folks looking for?

I can imagine that if Place Details (which I think is a great idea) is new to RM, that there should be a function that enables all users of earlier versions of RM to intelligently break up existing Place data into Place Details (cemetery names, hospital names, street addresses, districts, location descriptions, etc.) and Places (city/town/burrough/township, county/parish/region, state/province/territory, country). This suggests an even more general statement of need; any time new software functionality is added to a genealogy program, the software developers need to also provide the tools to enable prior software users to relatively easily reorganize their data into the new data structure. This is more than just converting the data files to the new software version level.

I would like the ability to pin a Bing (or Google, or whatever) map location, and have the associated coordinates populate the Latitude and Longitude field for a Place Details record (or a Place record, if the place does not have a pre-defined geolocation in the mapping software). Family Tree Maker 2012 has this capability, though it does not have Place Details. Moving this to a separate wish-list item since it is not the topic of this thread.

Edited by leeirons, 04 December 2011 - 09:19 AM.

[Nettie]

What particular functionality are you folks looking for?

I can imagine that if Place Details (which I think is a great idea) is new to RM, that there should be a function that enables all users of earlier versions of RM to intelligently break up existing Place data into Place Details (cemetery names, hospital names, street addresses, districts, location descriptions, etc.) and Places (city/town/burrough/township, county/parish/region, state/province/territory, country). This suggests an even more general statement of need; any time new software functionality is added to a genealogy program, the software developers need to also provide the tools to enable prior software users to relatively easily reorganize their data into the new data structure. This is more than just converting the data files to the new software version level.

I would like the ability to pin a Bing (or Google, or whatever) map location, and have the associated coordinates populate the Latitude and Longitude field for a Place Details record (or a Place record, if the place does not have a pre-defined geolocation in the mapping software). Family Tree Maker 2012 has this capability, though it does not have Place Details.

I have not seen RM5 as of today, maybe next week when I get settled in the south. We have had the feature in RM4 to add Latitude and Longitude field for places. NOT Place Details and if it is not in there yet, probably will be in the future. We are still waiting for the conversion process that we asked for in RM4 for breaking up Place data into Place Details. Maybe more difficult to program......

[leeirons]

I have not seen RM5 as of today, maybe next week when I get settled in the south. We have had the feature in RM4 to add Latitude and Longitude field for places. NOT Place Details and if it is not in there yet, probably will be in the future. We are still waiting for the conversion process that we asked for in RM4 for breaking up Place data into Place Details. Maybe more difficult to program......

RM5 has latitude and longitude fields for Place Details. It just does not have the ability to pin a location on the map and have the fields automatically populate based upon where the pin is placed on the map. This additional pining capability is what Family Tree Maker 2012 has.

[Romer]

Yes, it was reported a while back that a Place/Place Details parsing utility was or would be in the works, but no timeframe was given. Same for a source conversion utility.

Sarcasm/mockery directed toward Renee by those on account of certain items not being incorporated into the program is misguided and unfair. Frustration with the situation may be understandable, but not her.

[John James]

What particular functionality are you folks looking for?

I can imagine that if Place Details (which I think is a great idea) is new to RM, that there should be a function that enables all users of earlier versions of RM to intelligently break up existing Place data into Place Details (cemetery names, hospital names, street addresses, districts, location descriptions, etc.) and Places (city/town/burrough/township, county/parish/region, state/province/territory, country). This suggests an even more general statement of need; any time new software functionality is added to a genealogy program, the software developers need to also provide the tools to enable prior software users to relatively easily reorganize their data into the new data structure. This is more than just converting the data files to the new software version level.

I would like the ability to pin a Bing (or Google, or whatever) map location, and have the associated coordinates populate the Latitude and Longitude field for a Place Details record (or a Place record, if the place does not have a pre-defined geolocation in the mapping software). Family Tree Maker 2012 has this capability, though it does not have Place Details.

Various wishes have been posted including the simplest one for Geocoding to accept and split the Google Maps "What's here" query results.

Vyger has posted various bits on his own website and taken time to produce mcok ups see here http://www.vyger.co.uk/rootsmagic/

Sarcasm/mockery directed toward Renee by those on account of certain items not being incorporated into the program is misguided and unfair. Frustration with the situation may be understandable, but not her.

Romer if your comment was aimed at me it was wrongly placed, I believe Rennee does a great job on this forum and logging problems/wishes, there just seems to be noone reading. When Michael Booth came on board I thought "great more time for Bruce to Program" when Rennee cam on board I had the same thoughts, it just hasn't seemed to work out that way.

[Romer]

John, sorry, my comment wasn't just directed toward your post here, but toward various posts on the boards by people made at times since when she came on-board.

I apologize for reaching the conclusion that by her being mentioned by name and the perceived context ("Not to worry though, if it is broken Rennee will have a note of it in the Tracking System ") vs. not (" . . . if it is broken, there will be a note . . . "), you (and perhaps others who've written similarly) were being dismissive of her and her efforts here.

Very sorry for reading more into it than was intended -- my bad. I, too, think that Renee does a very good job and that the forum experience is better with her participation and feedback/acknowledgement.

Sorry also for veering discussion off-topic!

[John James]

I, too, think that Renee does a very good job and that the forum experience is better with her participation and feedback/acknowledgement.

No apoligy needed, i think Rennee does a very good job and I actually feel a little sorry for her being stuck in the middle of frustrated users and lack of development. Vyger built the place details screen in 2 hours working at it on and off, others have told me building the ui would not take much longer, a day at most, populating it and testing it with the data already in the db would take a week max for someone of middle experience.

I work with a lot of guys that are doing this stuff day in day out so my frustration is with RM and I suppose that means Bruce who for some reason refuses to programming utilities that users need to transition to the latest versions, as someone else said recently that should be a first priority, no point in having new features if they are to difficult to use.

[leeirons]

Evidently, Renee does NOT have agreement as this topic does not appear to be pinned. I too expected Place Management to be a huge priority and definitely an integral part of the next "major" revision which seemed to turn out to be a bust. Seems more of a "let's stick version 5 on it and we'll sell more and not seem so outdated" approach. I, for one, am less concerned about historical county boundaries or events within a specified distance than to clean up my huge list of unwieldy places into place details. Wonder when the utility will be out for that?

This topic was actually discussed in an earlier topic. Renee said that this is being worked on and that it is added to her tracking system.

[John James]

This topic was actually discussed in an earlier topic. Renee said that this is being worked on and that it is added to her tracking system.

Thanks i do hope that is still true as i believe places are very important to get right and programs need to help and encourage that as much as possible. We all know a name without a place means nothing and the more exact it gets the better.

Asking about a Murphy from Ireland, no chance, a Murphy from Tipperary, Ireland still no chance.

But ask about a Murphy with an association with both St. Marys Church, Tipperary and Hannaghans pub, Tipperary and you are down to about 10 possibles

I must also say the promimity report in the new rm5 looks interesting and hopefully can be used to create groups, that combined with the research log and the long overdue new place list might just be enough for me to switch over, providing the current problems have also died down.

[Renee Zamora]

So you guys were talking behind my back. You know I could always NOT add your requests to the tracking system.

I have removed all the pinned items from the Wish List. We need a fresh start, but not a fresh forum. Will wait a while, after people have played more with RootsMagic 5, before pinning any topics. Besides, this will give Bruce some time to teach webinars and demonstrate new features.

[John James]

So you guys were talking behind my back. You know I could always NOT add your requests to the tracking system.

I've been watching and I can promise you it was all good, I think the consenus is the wish that the tracking system gets dumped on Bruces desk every monday morning.

What about we employ you as a secret insider and instead of pinning things on the forum you pin the top 5 hottest features to Bruces door when he is out. lol

[Renee Zamora]

The tracking system is updated real-time and Bruce is working directly from it at all times. He knows immediately when something is reported.

To not annoy you anymore going forward I am not noting on the forums when something has been added to the tracking system. I will only comment when an item is fixed and will be in the next update.

[Ludlow Bay]

The tracking system is updated real-time and Bruce is working directly from it at all times. He knows immediately when something is reported.

To not annoy you anymore going forward I am not noting on the forums when something has been added to the tracking system. I will only comment when an item is fixed and will be in the next update.

Well, that is a slap in the face. I have two items right now in the Issues forum that I suspect are bugs. Without even so much as an acknowledgement that you can reproduce the error, why should I bother reporting? Without knowing whether it is considered an official bug or an "enhancement", why should I bother? These forums, powered by your users, inherently improve the RootsMagic image, credibility, and financial bottom line. If you don't respect us enough to COMMUNICATE, then just shut the forums down and find & fix the problems all by yourself.

Annoyed? Now I am.