Jump to content


Photo

Gedcom export


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Trebor22

Trebor22

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 27 November 2014 - 03:19 AM

I have been trying to use a gedcom exported from RootsMagic in PAF, but get errors along the line of:-

Unexpected tag 'ADDR' in Event Detail Structure

I have run the database tools in RM but they report all OK. Does anyone know if there is an easy fix for this, is it likely to be a problem importing into other programmes?

Bob

 



#2 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5459 posts

Posted 27 November 2014 - 06:29 AM

That is where RootsMagic exports the Place Detail, I believe. It is a bending of, or different interpretation of, the GEDCOM rules and is, therefore, not commonly supported by other software.

There might be a fix using a text editor on the GEDCOM with a multi line regular expression search and replace. Otherwise, don't use a Place Details in RM!

Tom user of RM7230 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> Rmtrix_tiny.png app, a growing bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#3 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 7084 posts

Posted 27 November 2014 - 08:12 AM

Have you tried unchecking the option to include "Extra Details (RM specific)".  The Place Details may still be an issue, but the GEDCOM will be cleaner.


Renee
RootsMagic

#4 Trebor22

Trebor22

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 28 November 2014 - 06:00 AM

Thanks for the suggestions!

 

I had unchecked to box for RM specific but still got the error.

 

The Text editor sounds  worth a try, will have a go when I have some time at the weekend.

 

It strikes me that 'compatiable' or 'clean' gedcoms ought to be a high priority in FH software, I must admit I had just taken it for granted when I shoped round for a PAF replacement, we live and learn!

 

Thanks for your help!

Bob



#5 c24m48

c24m48

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2607 posts

Posted 28 November 2014 - 08:19 AM


 

It strikes me that 'compatiable' or 'clean' gedcoms ought to be a high priority in FH software, I must admit I had just taken it for granted when I shoped round for a PAF replacement, we live and learn!

 

 

There are at least two major problems in this area. One problem is that the GEDCOM standard is very fuzzy. Even if doing their very best to comply with the GEDCOM standard, two different genealogy software packages could easily interpret many aspects of the standard in different ways. The other problem is that the GEDCOM standard is very confining. If a genealogy software package limited itself only to those features that can be readily exported and imported via GEDCOM, they would be very limited in the features they support. Indeed, they would probably look almost exactly like PAF. Finally, these two problems aggravate each other. If a software package does implement innovative features and does attempt to adapt the data associated with those features to GEDCOM, the way the package adapts those features to GEDCOM is not likely to be the same as the way a different package that implements the same features might adapt those features to GEDCOM.

 

I've understood these issues pretty well for years, but they have been reinforced for me by observing the recent struggles by TMG refugees trying to find a new genealogy software home. TMG is the most feature rich genealogy software that has been on the market, and it deviates more from the GEDCOM standard than any other genealogy software. TMG refugees are struggling to find another genealogy software package that meets their research needs moving forward. Almost equally important, they are struggling to find another genealogy software package that can receive their TMG data without significant loss. RM and several of its competitors have addressed the second issue by providing a direct import of data from a TMG database. But it's tricky to import some of the TMG data when said data depends on functionality that doesn't exist in the software package doing the import.

 

As a result, I'm reconsidering whether or not to use certain RM features, and if I use them - exactly how might I use them. For example, I love RM's Place Detail feature and I use it extensively. But the problem with GEDCOM export of Place Details is making me consider whether I wish to use it or not. For example, I purchased a package called Charting Companion because it can produce some reports that are not supported by RM. I found out about it because it was mentioned on the RM Web site, and there is even a Webcast on the RM Website about using Charting Companion with RM. But Charting Companion does not support RM's Place Details. Or more correctly, it didn't support RM's Place Details, I requested of Charting Companion that they add Place Detail support, and they did. But they implemented it incorrectly.

 

This is not RM's problem, and I certainly do not expect RM to fix a problem in Charting Companion even though RM more or less provided free advertizing for Charting Companion. But it is my problem, and I need to deal with it. My experience with Place Details and Charting Companion alone is probably not enough to make me quit using RM's Place Details. But how many more such Place Details problems are out there? Suppose I started using RM to exchange data with Family Search (I don't right now). What would happen with Place Details? Suppose I started using RM to exchange data with some other site or with some other genealogy software package. What would happen with Place Details? It is very worrisome. But not being able to use Place Details is worrisome as well.

 

Jerry



#6 Trebor22

Trebor22

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 28 November 2014 - 09:01 AM

Hi Jerry

 

Thank you very much for the detailed reply, which clearly explains the problems.

I guess I was assuming (wrongly!) that FH programmes would be able to export a 'clean gedcom' that would always import into another programme that supported gedcom. In RM I just assumed that was what I was doing by unchecking the box for RM specific features. As I mentioned you live and learn!

I have my family history in 4 separate (one for each grandparent) files and have only transferred one to RM so far, think I will pause for thought and experiment a bit with transfers to make sure I happy I know what's going on!

 

Thank you very much for your help, much appreciated!

Bob



#7 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5459 posts

Posted 28 November 2014 - 04:34 PM

Here is a sample export for an event:

1 EDUC
2 DATE AFT 1849
2 PLAC Canonsburg, Ohio
2 ADDR Associate Theological Seminary

PLAC is the standard tag recognised by all.

ADDR is used here in an unconventional way, not recognised by all.

 

I do not recall if PAF had any support for places that are subsidiary to another PLAC. If it does, have a look at how it exports them to give you a clue as to how to modify your GEDCOM. Otherwise, what PAF wants would be:

1 EDUC
2 DATE AFT 1849
2 PLAC Associate Theological Seminary, Canonsburg, Ohio
 

I cooked up the following regular expression search and replace that works in NotePad++:

 

Search: 2 PLAC(.+)$[\n\r]+2 ADDR(.+)

Replace: 2 PLAC$2,$1

 

Effectively, that recombines Place Details and Place in the GEDCOM - were it imported back to RootsMagic.


Tom user of RM7230 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> Rmtrix_tiny.png app, a growing bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#8 Trebor22

Trebor22

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 02 December 2014 - 05:44 AM

Hi Tom

 

Thanks very much for the suggestions and the 'search & replace' I will give that a try, in fact I am happy that simple editing of the gedcom would be an acceptable long term solution.

I  also tried importing the gedcom in to 2 other programmes I use over the weekend, and both worked fine so I am a little more confident with RM than I was. Should get plenty of time to 'play' over the upcomming holidays and then hopefully get back to the important bit of chasing those ancestors!

 

Thanks again for everybodys help!!!!!

Bob