Family Historian User Group

Whilst checking out the GEDCOM spec I came across:

Other associations or relationships are represented by the ASSOciation tag. The person's relation
or association is the person being pointed to. The association or relationship is stated by the value
on the subordinate RELA line. For example:
0 @I1@ INDI
1 NAME Fred/Jones/
1 ASSO @I2@
2 RELA Godfather

In TMG there is an option to select an ASSOciation tag, but I can't find similar in FH, is this on purpose or perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place?

I do note from looking around that it is mentioned in:
- Ancestral Sources Tutorial ~ Working With Templates ~ (4) Associated Persons
http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id ... %5b%5d=tag
and
- Property Box Tabs: Associated Persons
http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id ... ed_persons

It seems strange to have to add a property box, just to add an association.

Are there any advantages of using ASSOciations over Method1 for Sources (a separate source for each multi person event like census with detail in the source text). Possibly ease of seeing associations, which then begs the question; is there a method of showing connections between people like "how Related" but INCLUDING ASSOciations and/or sources?

It is possible to add Associations on the All tab of the Individual Property Box and the Records Window.
Right-click the person's Name and choose Add Miscellaneous > Add Associated Person.

The FHUG Download adds an Assoc tab to the existing Individual Property Box (not another Property Box).

Associated Persons are in no way a substitute for Source Citations.
As the GEDCOM says, they are a way of recording relationships between Individuals that are not Family Record (child/parent) relationships.
Note that unlike Family Record relationships, they are a one-way link only, and if you want the reverse link that must be added to the other Individual.

They are also not well supported in Reports and not at all by How Related.

cheers, I thought there must be a way. The ASSOciation sounds like it should be very useful, but if little used and supported (which comes first!), might be best to keep clear of. As far as I can see the Method 1 source title/note should also cover Associations (as in Census, Baptism etc all are not necessarily related).