Jump to content


Photo

Feature Request: Time Saver with places


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 pbooth99

pbooth99

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 02 May 2018 - 06:03 PM

Im wondering if a feature something like the following might be added?

 

My family tree is very UK focused and so, after importing baptism facts I get duplicate places that look like this:

 

Saint Peter, Liverpool, Lancashire, England

St Peter,'s Church Liverpool, Lancashire, England

Saint Silas, Liverpool, Lancashire, England

Saint Sylvestri, Liverpool, Lancashire, England
 
In some cases this place name can be geocoded. In most cases it cannot.
In general the place name is of the format <churchname> <town>, <county>, <country>
(Let's ignore United Kingdom for now) and, whilst it cant be geocoded, the place name 
can be. In those casses, it wou;d be great if there were a "tidy up" function that would
clean up these and add the church name as a place detail.
 
Is  this possible?

 

 

 



#2 keithcstone

keithcstone

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts

Posted 02 May 2018 - 10:08 PM

It may not be what you want, but there is a "tidy up" feature already there. If you go to Lists> Place list you'll see the various church names. Take the various spellings of the same church name and use the merge function to create one. Then use the Split Place Details on the same place list to remove the church name and leave just Liverpool, Lancashire, England. You'll then have several Liverpool, Lancashire, England that you can merge that will  end up with separate place details for each church. The remaining Liverpool, Lancashire, England you should be able to geocode. If you end up with St Silas and Saint Silas under Liverpool, Lancashire, England then you can go to place details on the same list and merge those two.



#3 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 7853 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 08:29 AM

Under Tools>DataClean>PlaceClean you can split the place details out.  After you clean go into Lists>Place List and merge the duplicates. The Place Detail merge is found by highlighting the Place and clicking on the Place Detail button. 


Renee
RootsMagic

#4 Vyger

Vyger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3145 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 09:20 AM

Place Details just make a complete mess of a Place List if part of the main Place in my opinion. I see all your facts are simply Liverpool, Lancashire, England and users addint the Church in an infinite variety of spellings just makes for endless duplication. I often come across First Presbyterian, 1st Presbyterian etc. all variations being unique and causing duplication.

 

Use the PlaceClean as indicated by Renee, it's not perfect but it will catch some, and what is not maybe obvious is that you can manually edit the right pane to suit.

 

I have wished for filtered finds within the Place List to help find and correct these instances as I also import a lot of this, in your case St or Saint would take you to the entries needing split. Sharing Liverpool, Lancashire, England is perfectly enough to catch a match with online services, these extra details only convolute and confuse any matching logic.


"Never, for the sake of peace and quiet, deny your own experience or convictions"

— Dag Hammarskjold

 

Current user of Rootsmagic version 7.5.7.0, Family Tree Maker 2014 and Legacy 7.5 on Win 10

 

Excel to Gedcom conversion - simple getting started tutorials here

 

Root


#5 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3024 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 10:47 AM

When Place Details first came out, I liked them so much that I spent dozens if not hundreds of hours splitting them out from Places (there were no tools to help at the time). But gradually I came to realize that Place Details didn't play well with other genealogy software that I use along with RM. FamilySearch is one of several examples.

 

So I have been combining Place Details back into Places ever since. I really like Place Details within RM and would happily use them if there were no considerations of using my data with software other than RM. I think each user needs to decide whether the niceness of Place Details within RM is more or less important than the ability to use the entire Place + Place Details data with other software in addition to RM.

 

Jerry

 



#6 Vyger

Vyger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3145 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 11:47 AM

I always viewed Place Details as a value added valuable component to anyone’s family story and not a component for sharing and comparing, in fact I welcomed the fact that my Place list would become a more recognizable geographic dataset that it was previously with Place Details being included. From a sharing point of view and in this example "Liverpool, Lancashire, England" is the important component, getting tied up in another personal recording style convolution again using this example of "St", "St." and "Saint" for a Church names etc. just increases duplication exponentially and is of no value to my research.

 

However, having the ability to research Sites down to detail level, include Notes, Media and Geocode does add greatly to the quality of any report produced by RM, or rather it will do once developed fully.

 

TreeShare allows for Place Details and Place to be combined, maybe this is a hint of the shape of things to come however I do not share Place Details with Ancestry for the matching reasons I have already mentioned. I know from previous discussions the ability to share Place Details by combining with the Place in gedcom etc. would be welcomed by many who share Jerry’s concern and I would hope that facility will come to make Place Details more appealing. If I say I'm looking for a John Doe born 1880 in Liverpool, England that is enough for research in my opinion, adding a Church name or other Place Detail would likely prompt the response "not sure" from any collaborator, again in my opinion.


"Never, for the sake of peace and quiet, deny your own experience or convictions"

— Dag Hammarskjold

 

Current user of Rootsmagic version 7.5.7.0, Family Tree Maker 2014 and Legacy 7.5 on Win 10

 

Excel to Gedcom conversion - simple getting started tutorials here

 

Root


#7 zhangrau

zhangrau

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1338 posts

Posted 03 May 2018 - 04:33 PM

.... If I say I'm looking for a John Doe born 1880 in Liverpool, England that is enough for research in my opinion, adding a Church name or other Place Detail would likely prompt the response "not sure" from any collaborator, again in my opinion.

 

I don't use Place Details, and I don't find that to be a major matching problem. Not any more than the many misspellings that creep in through shared research. To find the Jon Doe of Liverpool, I would run an Individual List filtered on Place Name contains Liverpool.

 

As for the St vs. St. vs. Saint issue, I seem to have followed a general trend that I perceived years ago. In English-speaking countries (England, USA, Ontario) I use St. Marcus Cemetery; in Québec I use Sainte-Félicité Cimetière; and, in France I use St-Victor Cimetière. For certain, I am not 100% consistent in this usage, but note that this will cause the Place List to be somewhat-sorted geographically. A nice feature once I achieved a pretty-thorough implementation.



#8 Vyger

Vyger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3145 posts

Posted 04 May 2018 - 12:37 PM

I don't use Place Details, and I don't find that to be a major matching problem.

 

It's the many and various personal systems to achieve a result of sorting or reporting that I would like to see at least partly overcome. This causes many text mismatches and by combining a Place Detail with a place this only multiplies the variance so, of course, matching between users becomes more fragmented. That is one reason I embrace Place Details, because it gives me a greater chance of maintaining a tight Place list understandable to others and online matching.

 

In your example, if you are referring to "Cimetière de La Chaussée St Victor" I believe this makes the mismatching point very clearly.


"Never, for the sake of peace and quiet, deny your own experience or convictions"

— Dag Hammarskjold

 

Current user of Rootsmagic version 7.5.7.0, Family Tree Maker 2014 and Legacy 7.5 on Win 10

 

Excel to Gedcom conversion - simple getting started tutorials here

 

Root


#9 zhangrau

zhangrau

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1338 posts

Posted 04 May 2018 - 03:03 PM

Actually, all 3 of my examples were fictitious, meant only to show how I tend to use St. (English speaking) Saint- or Sainte- (French speaking Canada) and St- or Ste- (France).

 

It is not uncommon to find the same geographic location to have various spellings on local signage, in a gazetteer, in an encyclopedia, on a map, etc. Indeed, some places appear to have different "official" names in their local language and in English. 

 

The fact is, it is difficult to identify and use a "standardized" Place Name system, since none seems to exist. 

 

The fact is, it is difficult to identify and use a "standardized" Place Name system, since none seems to exist.