I'm new to the forums and have recently started using RM, but I've been using genealogy applications for a long, long time. I have read several discussions here in the forums regarding the use of the "Place Details" field, some recent, some not. I noticed that several folks have said that the "Place Details" field is usually lost when exporting to GEDCOM and importing into most other genealogy software. Here's a couple of things that I have noticed during some recent GEDCOM export / import testing...
The "Place Details" field in RM exports to an ADDR tag subordinate to the event. The GEDCOM 5.5.1 standard allows this particular use of the ADDR tag. So in that regard, RM is compliant in it's export of the "Place Details" field. I may be wrong, but I believe 5.5.1 standard allows this use of the ADDR tag in order for the PLAC tag to remain jurisdictional in nature and not include addresses or specific buildings or locations.
While it is true that many genealogy applications do not import the ADDR tag directly into a similar "Place Details" field, the info is not necessarily lost when importing GEDCOM to another application. I have tested importing an RM created GEDCOM with info in the "Place Details" field into FTM 2017 and each time the "Place Details" info has been imported to the notes for the event to which the ADDR tag was subordinate (with "Address:" in front of the data). I believe this is as it should be in the absence of a specific "Place Details" field. Several folks had mentioned FTM specifically in regards to "Place Details" info being lost on import and I wanted to help clear that up.
In addition, for kicks and giggles, I also imported the same RM created GEDCOM into an old version of Sierra Generations, and the "Place Details" info (ADDR tag) was also imported into the notes/memo field for the given event. Perhaps some folks who have different applications, both old and new, could do this same test and report the results.
I simply wanted to point out that RM is actually creating compliant GEDCOM in it's handling of the "Place Details" field, and that this data is not lost when exporting to GEDCOM and importing to another application (at least not always anyway). Seems to me that the failing is on the part of the other applications that do not have a concession for RM's compliant use of the ADDR tag. Since the GEDCOM standard allows for both ADDR and PLAC in order to create a distinction, one would hope that any application that claims to be GEDCOM compliant would do the same. Looks to me like RM is doing it's part.
Please forgive me if this has already been discussed.