Jump to content


Photo

Encourage correct place name formatting


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 John James

John James

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 15 July 2007 - 10:02 AM


I wish ALL genealogy programs would make a move towards encouraging proper placename input and help bring about some standard for the future and I would like to see RM take the lead.

The present freehand method of inputing data in the place field allows just about anything to be placed there including dates, occupations and any sort of notes, I see this just about everytime I import a Gedcom file.

Parcel of land descriptions may differ around the world but there are generally 4 fields which tie down the location pretty good, I exclude a description field here as I would love to see that on every place to enter the Church, Cemetery or address etc.

Township - County - State - Country - (USA)
Townland - Parish - County - Country - (Ireland)

Apart from the exact location, address, building etc. that a description field would be useful for this 4 field format ties things down pretty well so why not encourage users to enter the separate parts of the place name that they know, RM can output it appropriately with ease in reports and Gedcoms.

Another advantage of moving towards this segmented place name would be in naritive reports to output the full place name in the first instance then the least significant part of the place name for subsequent facts therefore getting away from the long winded and repetitive present system, in fact it could be user definable.






#2 decann

decann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 15 July 2007 - 11:58 AM

John,

I think I like your idea in principle, but it would require someone to first decide what the "correct" place name format is and there are simply so many different formats being used by so many people that I am not real sure your idea is practical in fact.

For example, I myself spell everything out, with no abbreviations such as:

Plymouth, Plymouth County, Massachusetts

If the place name is in the USA, then no country name is stated, but anywhere else in the world it is. If a further place name is known, then I include that as well:

Old Burying Ground, Plymouth, Plymouth County, Massachusetts

This is the "standard" that I have established to use myself, mainly because it leaves no doubt what is meant and there are no abbreviations to interpret, and this seems to be a commonly accepted practice in the genealogy community.

I note you are in Ireland, and this means many of your place names will have a somewhat different format than mine will. Neither formats would be right or wrong, but they are obviously different. When you spread it around the world it further compounds the difficulty in coming up with an acceptable standard that would be acceptable.

I think your idea is a good one, and in principle I think I agree with you. However, I am not sure it is very practical so long as so many of us do things so differently. I share your unhappiness though with the "creative" formatting (and non-formatting) I see in so much material that I exchange with folks, but I am not sure there is a practical solution to the problem. This is why I MANUALLY ENTER EVERYTHING, no merging at all, because every fact, place name and acestor (49,000 and counting) is entered one at a time and all following the same consistent format I have used in the beginning.

That is my own way of "cleansing" the lack of formatting from my source material. It is a long process sometimes, but I have managed to resist the urge to merge anything other than small fragments of information for 17 years now, and it works for me.

#3 John James

John James

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 16 July 2007 - 05:40 AM



David

Thanks for your feedback and thoughts, nothing of which I disagree with. I know this is a major problem because there is currently nothing in place to encourage some sort of standard format apart from well disciplined individuals like yourself.

When I thought it through all places, where ever in the world would be described from smallest land portion to largest and 4 fields would probably do it. In the future we will want to click on those places and have mapping software understand the format and display the location of the place.

It would not really matter whether the Country was entered or not as if the place was stored is separate fields then RM can decide whether to output certain parts of the place or not.

The "Old Burying Ground" should be in some sort of description field although with the current lack of this on many facts, I do it exactly the same as you as it allows me to select that place and print all individuals with it.

I am thinking that some sort of prompting or guidance would help people new to genealogy get into the habit of entering places in a standard format and reduce the place name freehand problem in the future along with encouraging current users to adopt a repeatable and understandable format.

As you know, every journey starts with a small step.

John James



#4 decann

decann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 16 July 2007 - 11:32 AM

John,

Great idea, and I support it totally, but I am just not sure it can be done in our lifetime. Particularly for an old (64) geezer like me who tends to be too set in his ways and resistent to change. Add to that the fact people tend to want to do things their own way in the first place, so if some mechanism cannot be derived to get them to follow a set format in the beginning, then you have effectively lost them for the future.

Something else just occurred to me, too. Once again referring to your country and mine, you generally spell things with "English English." In the way of America, where most Americans prefer to "change the world" we use "American English," and the two are not the same. Throwing places like Canada into the factor, you have something of a mixture of the two.

I am not sure there is a workable formula to accomplish what you suggest, but it would sure be nice if there were. In 1902 people were calling the Wright brothers lunatics for suggesting man could fly, but 1903 they proved them all wrong and look what we have today. Very interesting idea of yours though, and anyone who has ever exchanged a GEDCOM or any other genealogy information has got to appreciate the benefits of it.

#5 J.O. Sellereite

J.O. Sellereite

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7 posts

Posted 18 July 2007 - 07:15 PM

Earlier I tried to suggest a way of entering place names. (Only as guest that time). I feel a major problem with the place list today is actually it is a list component. When entering place name today you have to be very diciplined when enter "Township - County - State - Country". How many genealogist can say they have filled in all this correctly for every place name. I find a solution of using several edit field as not a good enough solution. This because you have to retype the country and counties again and again when only the Township is different.

The solution for this is to use a tree component. Yes I want to enter place names like you do make dir. in Windows file explorer.

By this way you can enter a country name once, and a county name once, and the user is forced in a simple way to organize all place names correctly.

I also see numerous other advanteges by doing it this way. Rootsmagic is given fully control on which township belongs to which county, which county belongs to which state, and which state belong to which country. Something I have been missing in todays place list is to write something generally about counties and countries. But todays list link this only to the last part of the place name. This means I have to register the county and country as indivual place names.

In many posts there have been wishes for shorter place names in the reports. Even this will be much easier with a tree structure. When having control of each part of the place name, Rootsmagic can omit unnecessary parts of the place names in the reports.

A tree stucture can also open for more statistical options. How many relatives is born in different counties and states and countries for instance.

Another problem that has to be taken care of is that each country has different dividing of the place names. "Township - County - State - Country" might work for USA, but it might not work for other countries. This means it should also be possible to decide dividing for each country. I am not sure how this will work with GEDCOM, but if it will work, the dividing should be set up when entering a new country. On a dialog for a country there could be a list with indentation where you enter the structure for that country. For USA it could look like

State
__County
____Township

For my country Norway it would look like

Fylke
__Kommune
____Sted

Radical ideas maybe, and maybe some work to implement. But I think this is the only way of good enough way of handling place names.

Jon Oddvar Sellereite

#6 Vyger

Vyger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3435 posts

Posted 19 July 2007 - 12:07 PM

QUOTE(J.O. Sellereite @ Jul 19 2007, 02:15 AM) View Post

I also see numerous other advanteges by doing it this way. Rootsmagic is given fully control on which township belongs to which county, which county belongs to which state, and which state belong to which country. Something I have been missing in todays place list is to write something generally about counties and countries. But todays list link this only to the last part of the place name. This means I have to register the county and country as indivual place names.....

A tree stucture can also open for more statistical options. How many relatives is born in different counties and states and countries for instance.....

Another problem that has to be taken care of is that each country has different dividing of the place names. "Township - County - State - Country" might work for USA, but it might not work for other countries. This means it should also be possible to decide dividing for each country. I am not sure how this will work with GEDCOM, but if it will work, the dividing should be set up when entering a new country. On a dialog for a country there could be a list with indentation where you enter the structure for that country. For USA it could look like

State
__County
____Township

For my country Norway it would look like

Fylke
__Kommune
____Sted

Radical ideas maybe, and maybe some work to implement. But I think this is the only way of good enough way of handling place names.

Jon Oddvar Sellereite



If I am reading this right, and I believe I am, this request is the same as the original post. Whether you call it a tree or fields, it is the separate sections of a place held in a relational database format.

If this were adopted, and I believe it should, it would be possible to click Wayne County and see a list of the townships in it rather than have to remember the name, Same would apply if you selected Pennsylvania, you would have a drop down list of the Counties in PA.

This could also work the other way as well where in my case if I enter Ballyrobert as the smallest piece of land, the next field would give me a drop down choice of parishes that have a townland called Ballyrobert and so forth.

The last poster mentioned that RM could (through user choice) leave off pieces of the place name in various reports, thsi would be easily achieved and is another plus.

This type of place storage has so many advantages it seems hard to avoid in the future and I would think 4 pieces of the place should be enough for a pretty accurate description.

Oh and by the way it's nice to learn how they describe the places in Norway, I suppose the description of the places is not so important as long as the way they are entered is consistant.

Customers should never be frustrated by things they cannot do.

 

User of Family Historian 6.2.7, Rootsmagic 7.6.2, Family Tree Maker 2014 & Legacy 7.5

 

Excel to Gedcom conversion - simple getting started tutorials here

 

Root


#7 mapleleaf

mapleleaf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 559 posts

Posted 10 August 2007 - 10:19 PM

QUOTE(John James @ Jul 15 2007, 11:02 AM) View Post


Parcel of land descriptions may differ around the world but there are generally 4 fields which tie down the location pretty good, I exclude a description field here as I would love to see that on every place to enter the Church, Cemetery or address etc.

Township - County - State - Country - (USA)
Townland - Parish - County - Country - (Ireland)

Apart from the exact location, address, building etc. that a description field would be useful for this 4 field format ties things down pretty well so why not encourage users to enter the separate parts of the place name that they know, RM can output it appropriately with ease in reports and Gedcoms.

Another advantage of moving towards this segmented place name would be in naritive reports to output the full place name in the first instance then the least significant part of the place name for subsequent facts therefore getting away from the long winded and repetitive present system, in fact it could be user definable.


Excellent post! That's exactly what I'm looking for - to have separate fields for each part of a location. It would encourage users to look up county and township names and to enter information correctly the first time. And it would better help mapping programs such as Family Atlas to find our genealogy towns on a map. rolleyes.gif

~ Debbie

#8 wigginsmum

wigginsmum

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

Posted 11 August 2007 - 08:04 AM

I would certainly vote for this proposal. I've just noticed on mine that an ancestor born in Paris (on an imported GEDCOM) has been mapped to somewhere in the Pacific Ocean when it should be France, and that's just one example, so I'm going to have to go through each record and sort it out (and NOT import any more GEDCOMs).

#9 Vyger

Vyger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3435 posts

Posted 11 August 2007 - 10:40 AM

QUOTE(wigginsmum @ Aug 11 2007, 03:04 PM) View Post

I would certainly vote for this proposal. I've just noticed on mine that an ancestor born in Paris (on an imported GEDCOM) has been mapped to somewhere in the Pacific Ocean when it should be France, and that's just one example, so I'm going to have to go through each record and sort it out (and NOT import any more GEDCOMs).



I have stated on another post recently that I believe progress in this area is unavoidable with global mapping becoming so accessible.

The problem with the place list currently is that it has NO rigid structure which can be understood by other programs except from the users self imposed discipline.

The four field method would probably tie down most world locations to a relatively small area but the problem of being able to make that more precise with the addition of house number and street, Church, cemetery or other description needs to be dealt with also.

I can see and agree that if RM prompted the user to enter what fields they knew, although maybe a little more time consuming, it would make for a much more understandable place list in the future.

There are also the advantages in output choices as mentioned before and the possibility of the database helping you choose which county the township or townland was in depending on it's learning based on the data you have already entered.





Customers should never be frustrated by things they cannot do.

 

User of Family Historian 6.2.7, Rootsmagic 7.6.2, Family Tree Maker 2014 & Legacy 7.5

 

Excel to Gedcom conversion - simple getting started tutorials here

 

Root


#10 Alfred

Alfred

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5734 posts

Posted 11 August 2007 - 01:08 PM

I can see lots of problems to be resolved before this "multiple place fields" idea can be implimented.
Combining them for export to a GEDCOM file won't be too bad.
Parsing them into the proper fields when importing a GEDCOM will be a nightmare. Where is "he was a Carpenter" or "Honorable w excellent recommendations"? I know, I SHOULD have cleaned up the FTM GEDCOM before I imported it, but I was in a hurry blink.gif
Those are extremes, but, people enter places in so many different ways already that they would almost have to be broken down and each part entered individually every time a GEDCOM file was imported. Even from RootsMagic to RootsMagic, unless the GEDCOM was very carefully comma delimited, leaving a blank place for every field not entered.


One thing I would like to see:
A way to export the place from the Family Atlas, after I get it all corrected, and paste it back into RootsMagic, along with the coordinates, or ONLY the coordinates in case of a cemetery or church or something that Family Atlas didn't recognize. (That way the coordinates would be there for the next time I imported into the Atlas and I wouldn't ever have to "Splain" it to Family Atlas, or any other program again.)


Alfred

#11 wigginsmum

wigginsmum

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

Posted 11 August 2007 - 01:40 PM

QUOTE(Alfred @ Aug 11 2007, 08:08 PM) View Post
Where is "he was a Carpenter" or "Honorable w excellent recommendations"?


Probably in the same place as my 'He had children by his sister,' 'Went out to the pub for a beer and didn't come back for 8 years,' and 'She went insane after George died.' blink.gif


#12 mapleleaf

mapleleaf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 559 posts

Posted 11 August 2007 - 01:50 PM

QUOTE(Alfred @ Aug 11 2007, 02:08 PM) View Post

One thing I would like to see:
A way to export the place from the Family Atlas, after I get it all corrected, and paste it back into RootsMagic, along with the coordinates, or ONLY the coordinates in case of a cemetery or church or something that Family Atlas didn't recognize. (That way the coordinates would be there for the next time I imported into the Atlas and I wouldn't ever have to "Splain" it to Family Atlas, or any other program again.)


I agree. Family Atlas has gone to all the work of finding the county names and coordinates for me, but I still have to make these corrections to RootsMagic place list. I haven't worked with Family Atlas enough to know if we could use the export feature in FA (Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet file), if that .xls file could be imported into RM into the place list. If so, we could merge those places with the incorrect ones.

I also wonder if ever the day comes when/if RootsMagic uses separate fields for city, township, county, state, country if we'd have to retype all our place names into those fields. In the long run, it would be worth it, but would be time consuming. And we would be motivated to get rid of our non-place info that's cluttering up the place list.

~ Debbie

#13 Vyger

Vyger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3435 posts

Posted 11 August 2007 - 02:24 PM

QUOTE(Alfred @ Aug 11 2007, 08:08 PM) View Post

Parsing them into the proper fields when importing a GEDCOM will be a nightmare. Where is "he was a Carpenter" or "Honorable w excellent recommendations"? I know, I SHOULD have cleaned up the FTM GEDCOM before I imported it, but I was in a hurry


QUOTE(mapleleaf @ Aug 11 2007, 08:50 PM) View Post

I also wonder if ever the day comes when/if RootsMagic uses separate fields for city, township, county, state, country if we'd have to retype all our place names into those fields. In the long run, it would be worth it, but would be time consuming. And we would be motivated to get rid of our non-place info that's cluttering up the place list.


Parsing them in the future would not be a problem if the genealogy programming community adopted an environment which encouraged proper formatting, the the freehand notes in place fields would be gone forever.

Regarding getting places to a STANDARD then utilities could help. At present I spend a considerable time working my place database as it is to keep it right, working it to a standard which will save me time in the future I don't mind.

RM could easily throw up a "place not known" problem type list where users could chip away at the garbage places and correct them to a format understood by Family Atlas etc. I have held off on Family Atlas for this very reason waiting to see what the next month brings us.


Customers should never be frustrated by things they cannot do.

 

User of Family Historian 6.2.7, Rootsmagic 7.6.2, Family Tree Maker 2014 & Legacy 7.5

 

Excel to Gedcom conversion - simple getting started tutorials here

 

Root


#14 Terry Foster

Terry Foster

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 16 August 2007 - 11:18 AM

I, too, have fought with place names for a while. I am also a data integrator by profession so have some ideas on how it could be accomplished. If you care to follow along, I'll give the technical details:

First and foremost, the plain text field MUST remain. There has to be a place that someone can enter place names in any old format they want. The advanced location finder should be a functionality that the end use could toggle on or off because it would apply rigor to the place name standards that some would find unacceptable.

Several parameters would need to be supplied by the end user:

Home Country: There should be a default the user could set so they would not have to enter "USA" for 90% of their data if.

Abbreviations: Should be several here, do you want countries abbreviated? States? use "Co." instead of "County" and "Twp." instead of "Township". Do you want to use two or three letter country codes (eg. "DE" or "DEU" for Germany) This is important for readability and for Gedcom Export. Some genealogy programs have the ridiculous limitation of 100 characters for place names. (Wait, which board am I on? tongue.gif )

Lat/Lon: Should it be stored in degrees minutes seconds or decimal degrees?

Place Seperator: Yes, a comma is the most common, but some people may find the need to use a comma in the place name itself so other seperators should be available. (e.g. Tilde, colon, at sign, etc.

Left/Right: Should the locations read left to right or right to left. This may seem like a no brainer, we always start by entering the specific location and working our way up to the country. There is real value, however, in seeing the data the other way. Of course once you have the locations in seperated fields you can see it in any way you want so this would be for gedcom import/export only.

Location Lookup: There are several ways to use the internet to lookup place names. A person should be able to choose from several selected methods (Have you seen geonames.org??? Fantastic!)

With those parameters you should be able to read place names into fields along these lines:

Continent (perhaps another parameter?)
Country
State
County
Township
City
Other
Latitude
Longitude

I have written an application that connects to the RM3 back-end, applies all this logic, allows me to look up place names and then re-imports it back to RM. My place names have never looked better! So I know this can be done, just waiting to see which application implements this style of logic first. I hope it's RootsMagic as it has become my family history tool of choice.

#15 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3459 posts

Posted 16 August 2007 - 11:35 AM

All I can guess for sure... is that this company is probably striving somewhat for the best interoperability amongst some/all of it's own family-related products! ;-)

---
--- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--- "The trouble ain't what people don't know, it's what they know that ain't so." - Josh Billings
---Ô¿Ô---
K e V i N


#16 Vyger

Vyger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3435 posts

Posted 16 August 2007 - 07:29 PM

QUOTE(Terry Foster @ Aug 16 2007, 06:18 PM) View Post

I, too, have fought with place names for a while. I am also a data integrator by profession so have some ideas on how it could be accomplished. If you care to follow along, I'll give the technical details:

First and foremost, the plain text field MUST remain. There has to be a place that someone can enter place names in any old format they want. The advanced location finder should be a functionality that the end use could toggle on or off because it would apply rigor to the place name standards that some would find unacceptable.

Several parameters would need to be supplied by the end user:

Home Country: There should be a default the user could set so they would not have to enter "USA" for 90% of their data if.

Abbreviations: Should be several here, do you want countries abbreviated? States? use "Co." instead of "County" and "Twp." instead of "Township". Do you want to use two or three letter country codes (eg. "DE" or "DEU" for Germany) This is important for readability and for Gedcom Export. Some genealogy programs have the ridiculous limitation of 100 characters for place names. (Wait, which board am I on? tongue.gif )

Lat/Lon: Should it be stored in degrees minutes seconds or decimal degrees?

Place Seperator: Yes, a comma is the most common, but some people may find the need to use a comma in the place name itself so other seperators should be available. (e.g. Tilde, colon, at sign, etc.

Left/Right: Should the locations read left to right or right to left. This may seem like a no brainer, we always start by entering the specific location and working our way up to the country. There is real value, however, in seeing the data the other way. Of course once you have the locations in seperated fields you can see it in any way you want so this would be for gedcom import/export only.

Location Lookup: There are several ways to use the internet to lookup place names. A person should be able to choose from several selected methods (Have you seen geonames.org??? Fantastic!)

With those parameters you should be able to read place names into fields along these lines:

Continent (perhaps another parameter?)
Country
State
County
Township
City
Other
Latitude
Longitude

I have written an application that connects to the RM3 back-end, applies all this logic, allows me to look up place names and then re-imports it back to RM. My place names have never looked better! So I know this can be done, just waiting to see which application implements this style of logic first. I hope it's RootsMagic as it has become my family history tool of choice.



With all due respect the proposal as I understood it was promoting a move towards some sort of standard format for places understandable outside RM. I would not have seen this as being carved in stone and if a four or five field format was adopted any of these fields could have free text in them. I would assume these would just be thrown up as unknown anomilies in some sort of report.

I always see fields in every app as smallest piece of land to largest, you don't say the was from USA, PA, Wayne Co, Tanners Falls. Abbreviations etc can be taken care of by the program easily through relationships.

I'm sorry but whilst all the points you make have their own validity, I see your post as counter productive rather productive. Introducing every possible variation of entering places is hardly going to bring us any closer to some sort of adopted standard.


Customers should never be frustrated by things they cannot do.

 

User of Family Historian 6.2.7, Rootsmagic 7.6.2, Family Tree Maker 2014 & Legacy 7.5

 

Excel to Gedcom conversion - simple getting started tutorials here

 

Root


#17 Terry Foster

Terry Foster

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 16 August 2007 - 08:55 PM

QUOTE(Vyger @ Aug 16 2007, 08:29 PM) View Post

With all due respect the proposal as I understood it was promoting a move towards some sort of standard format for places understandable outside RM. I would not have seen this as being carved in stone and if a four or five field format was adopted any of these fields could have free text in them. I would assume these would just be thrown up as unknown anomilies in some sort of report.

I always see fields in every app as smallest piece of land to largest, you don't say the was from USA, PA, Wayne Co, Tanners Falls. Abbreviations etc can be taken care of by the program easily through relationships.

I'm sorry but whilst all the points you make have their own validity, I see your post as counter productive rather productive. Introducing every possible variation of entering places is hardly going to bring us any closer to some sort of adopted standard.


Alas, I tried to be clear but I obviously wasn't. I was not suggesting that all of the fields to be free form text, just the one. The data in the free form field could then be parsed into and out of the standardized location fields. The problem is that there is no standard created that would satisfy all needs across all localities (think outside the U.S.). The field that is parsed into and out of would be what is exported into the gedcom. This way, no matter what you do with the data to scrub and clean it, the user will always know the end product.

The right to left syntax is my own pet project that, for serious discussion, should not have been placed in the post as I am apparently the only person who has had use for it and, as I mentioned, once the data is normalized, it becomes a moot exercise.

What I meant to stress is that we have data entered into location fields in as many different ways as there are people entering it. Any application that tries to tackle standardization will need to (1) have a standard template that is how the locations will look when exported out and (2) have intelligence built into the code that will move the data to its proper format with as little effort on the part of the user as possible.

Rigor and flexibility is a tough dance. I have written what worked for me. I wouldn't presume to think my approach would work for everyone.

#18 ginny555

ginny555

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5 posts

Posted 16 August 2007 - 10:34 PM

I too would like to see the formatting changed to allow adding to the sentences, the church name, street address or cemetery name. The church name addition would be helpful not only to marriages but also baptism's. I love working with Roots Magic but there are improvements that would make the Place list cleaner.

Ginny

#19 John_of_Ross_County

John_of_Ross_County

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 663 posts

Posted 16 August 2007 - 10:58 PM

QUOTE(Vyger @ Jul 19 2007, 11:07 AM) View Post

If I am reading this right, and I believe I am, this request is the same as the original post. Whether you call it a tree or fields, it is the separate sections of a place held in a relational database format.

If this were adopted, and I believe it should, it would be possible to click Wayne County and see a list of the townships in it rather than have to remember the name, Same would apply if you selected Pennsylvania, you would have a drop down list of the Counties in PA.

This could also work the other way as well where in my case if I enter Ballyrobert as the smallest piece of land, the next field would give me a drop down choice of parishes that have a townland called Ballyrobert and so forth.

The last poster mentioned that RM could (through user choice) leave off pieces of the place name in various reports, thsi would be easily achieved and is another plus.

This type of place storage has so many advantages it seems hard to avoid in the future and I would think 4 pieces of the place should be enough for a pretty accurate description.

Oh and by the way it's nice to learn how they describe the places in Norway, I suppose the description of the places is not so important as long as the way they are entered is consistant.


Take a look at a previous posting and responses:

http://www.rootsmagi...l=reverse order

This would allow a well ordered place list in the current format to be used as sort of a drop down listing. However, it would require the user to key in the most significant field or fields first. It would not require a particular field structure. It would not work well with a poorly structured place list.


QUOTE(Vyger @ Jul 19 2007, 11:07 AM) View Post

If I am reading this right, and I believe I am, this request is the same as the original post. Whether you call it a tree or fields, it is the separate sections of a place held in a relational database format.

If this were adopted, and I believe it should, it would be possible to click Wayne County and see a list of the townships in it rather than have to remember the name, Same would apply if you selected Pennsylvania, you would have a drop down list of the Counties in PA.

This could also work the other way as well where in my case if I enter Ballyrobert as the smallest piece of land, the next field would give me a drop down choice of parishes that have a townland called Ballyrobert and so forth.

The last poster mentioned that RM could (through user choice) leave off pieces of the place name in various reports, thsi would be easily achieved and is another plus.

This type of place storage has so many advantages it seems hard to avoid in the future and I would think 4 pieces of the place should be enough for a pretty accurate description.

Oh and by the way it's nice to learn how they describe the places in Norway, I suppose the description of the places is not so important as long as the way they are entered is consistant.


Take a look at a previous posting and responses. Note the difficulty of relating post office rural route addresses to a real physical location.

http://www.rootsmagi...l=reverse order

This would allow a well ordered place list in the current format to be used as sort of a drop down listing. However, it would require the user to key in the most significant field or fields first. It would not require a particular field structure. It would not work well with a poorly structured place list.

I think I like the current proposal better than my original suggestion.

#20 Vyger

Vyger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3435 posts

Posted 17 August 2007 - 02:20 PM

QUOTE(Terry Foster @ Aug 17 2007, 03:55 AM) View Post

What I meant to stress is that we have data entered into location fields in as many different ways as there are people entering it. Any application that tries to tackle standardization will need to (1) have a standard template that is how the locations will look when exported out and (2) have intelligence built into the code that will move the data to its proper format with as little effort on the part of the user as possible.

Rigor and flexibility is a tough dance. I have written what worked for me. I wouldn't presume to think my approach would work for everyone.



Suggestive Terry, not Rigor. Although RM could have any number of separate fields for the components of place names, I think the proposal is that RM should suggest what should be filled into those fields and not actually try to validate the data.

This way place data is structured now or any free text for that matter could simply be filled into the first available field if the user didn't care or just wanted speedy entry. Where this poor formatting would come back to haunt them is if and when the tried to integrate with another mapping program or the like.

I believe as has been said before that if we had this years ago most place databases would be in much better shape than they are now.

omo


Customers should never be frustrated by things they cannot do.

 

User of Family Historian 6.2.7, Rootsmagic 7.6.2, Family Tree Maker 2014 & Legacy 7.5

 

Excel to Gedcom conversion - simple getting started tutorials here

 

Root