* Export GEDCOM File - Roots Magic - standardized place names

[BillH]

Mike,

I have a question about the Export GEDCOM File using the RMT defaults.

I have been playing around with exporting my data to Roots Magic using all the default values for RMT. I really don't know Roots Magic at all, I've just begun looking through the program and its help.

Standardized names for places are not seeming to be imported into RM.

I see in the exported GEDCOM file from the plugin that these are present as 1 STAN xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. In the RM import of the GEDCOM, I get errors for all these flagging them as Unknown Info.

RM does have a field for standard names for places, but they are all blank after the import. I looked around at the options in the plugin, but didn't see any that seemed to apply to standardized names.

Is there something I'm missing?

Do you know how I go about getting the standardized names in FH to populate the standard name field in RM? With all of the research you've done to include exporting to RM in your plugin, I thought you would know what is happening.

Thanks,
Bill

[tatewise]

It is a while since I reviewed RootsMagic in any detail.
I know it has Place records but cannot recall doing anything particular for Standardized fields.
Leave it with me for the moment and I will investigate.

[BillH]

Thanks Mike.

[tatewise]

I have reviewed RootsMagic and investigated its exported GEDCOM format for Place records.
It does not include either the Standardized or the Abbreviated field, so it probably does not import them either.

The best I can suggest is that the FH Standardized (STAN) field is moved to the Place record Note field.
That will be incorporated into the next release of the Plugin.

The Place Latitude & Longitude values do migrate to the RootsMagic Place records, so the Standardized field is not needed for geocoding.

[BillH]

Mike,

That would be a good solution. Then in RM the standardized name could be moved from the place note to the standardized name field. I don't have a lot of places that use standardized names.

You have probably thought of this but some of my notes fields already have notes in them so maybe you could just add the standardized name to either the front or end of the existing note if one exists.

Thanks!
Bill

[tatewise]

Yes, the Plugin can cope with existing Notes and there are options on the Label tabs to add before or after them.

[BillH]

Thanks Mike.

Bill

[E Wilcock]

I regularly use the export GEDCOM plug in to export to Rootsmagic. I own the software. Version 7.
I didnt ask deep questions, Mike, and have had no complaints.
I keep one or two of my family trees in Rootsmagic anyway.
RM is my regular software for sharing because the free version of RM allows another person to view their chunk of a tree.

[dbnut]

I see in the exported GEDCOM file from the plugin that these are present as 1 STAN xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. In the RM import of the GEDCOM, I get errors for all these flagging them as Unknown Info.

Hi, and sorry for reopening this thread, but hoping Mike @tatewise or other expert could comment on this...

This "STAN" tag subordinate to _PLAC "record" came as an unwelcome surprise to me when running a validity check on one of my GEDs.

It was flagged up as non-standard and as far as I can tell does not exist in GEDCOM 5.5 (no wonder RM objected). That's curious as Calico is very particular about compliance, so I would have expected something like "_STAN".

Maybe I'm missing something (as usual). Happy New Year and thanks for the help.

[tatewise]

Paul, it is my understanding that once the GEDCOM file introduces custom records whose tag has a prefixed underscore then there is no need to use custom subsidiary tags.
So the FH V7 records for Places _PLAC, Source Templates _SRCT and Research Notes _RNOT can use whatever subsidiary tags they like and they do, e.g. STAN, STAT, COLL, CATG, BIBL, FOOT, FDEF, and so on.

[dbnut]

Mike, many thanks for the quick reply.

Must say I'm hugely disappointed it's thought to be a free-for-all under the covers of a custom top level.

Not trying to pick a fight here, but nowhere have I found it explicitly allowed that a top-level record may hide non-underscored custom tags. So far, all the literature I've seen hammers the likes of:

According to the standard all user-defined tags must begin with an underscore character...

All. Must. Without qualifying this applies only/strictly/normally/preferably to record level.

Without that discipline (and in the absence of a schema) there is absolutely no way of knowing which subordinate tags conform to standard interpretation, which have special meaning. And every danger of violating the explicit prohibition of using standard tags with non-standard structure (and semantics).

If anyone has discovered such an official escape clause please tell me. So I can cry myself to sleep.

[tatewise]

You may have a point, so perhaps you should ask CP via http://www.calico-pie.com/osticket/open.php how they claim GEDCOM compliance with such user-defined tags without an underscore.