* Address, Place and Standardized Place

Questions regarding use of any Version of Family Historian. Please ensure you have set your Version of Family Historian in your Profile. If your question fits in one of these subject-specific sub-forums, please ask it there.
Post Reply
avatar
Shiriki
Diamond
Posts: 70
Joined: 27 Sep 2014 10:09
Family Historian: V7
Location: Dartford, Kent, UK

Address, Place and Standardized Place

Post by Shiriki » 06 Feb 2015 18:11

Hi there

I’m still plodding on sorting out my locations for Facts in CSV format using for the moment only the Place field. (8 columns).
I note however that there is now the option (in V6) of having a Standardized Place field to help with geocoding in the Main Tab of Display Place Record. This has got me thinking……

1. When entering a Fact for an individual (or couple) is it possible to somehow directly enter a Standardized Place location without first entering data in a Place field (i.e. leaving both Place and Address field empty?

2. When entering a Standardized Place can you enter a location in CSV format which could be cut and pasted either in part or full to an Address or Place field? I suspect (and hope) the answer should be Yes…..

3. Even if the answer to 1. above is no, not all is lost for my next question, but it would mean manipulating data about to perhaps achieve what may be desirable……but anyway here goes (assuming we have arrived at the position with access to a Standardized Place field for a Fact location)…..………

If one entered a location within the Standardized Place field in CSV format using say the equivalent of 8 columns e.g:

Building Name, Number, Road/Street, Village, Town, County/State, Postcode/Zip Code, Country

Would it then be possible (for somebody who knows about these things) to write a plug-in which could extract either full (or in part) from this field what is required by the user to populate the Place and/or Address fields dependent upon what they want to do with their data?

For example extract the Building Name, Number, Road/Street, Village and populate the Address field (then perhaps adjust Address Columns to 4) also extract , Town, County/State, Postcode/Zip Code, Country and populate the Place Field (again adjust Place Columns to 4 in this case).

If the Address/Place fields needed to be modified at some later date then re-run the plug-in to populate the Address and Place fields as required ( e.g. 3 column Place, 5 column Address). Perhaps one could even have the option to ignore some of the CSV data (e.g. Postcode/Zipcode) so it does not appear in say the Address field. In this way the Postcode/Zipcode is only used in this example for Geocoding purposes, but would not detract in the appearance of reports etc.

If the above is possible, would this aid and simplify our choices of what to put in the Place/Address fields for our immediate needs and in the event we change our minds in the future........we can run the plug-in as required to give us the output we desire for diagrams/reports etc. We could then re-instate our original set-up after publication by re-running the plug-in with different parameters from our untouched Standardized Place Field to put things back to as they were…..

Hopefully my thinking is not too muddled and I have explained clearly what I am thinking about…..I’m intrigued if it is possible to do and whether or not it is a potentially a viable alternative to any other methods of manipulating Place and Address fields….

The fact that the Standardized Place field once set up is not amended makes me think that this also mean that Geocoding data would not be upset by such manipulation of data within Place and Address fields or am I kidding myself.

Again any comments would be most welcome

Thanks in advance

Shiriki

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 27088
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Address, Place and Standardized Place

Post by tatewise » 06 Feb 2015 19:07

I am afraid that your thinking is rather muddled, and most of what you propose is not possible.
May I suggest you actually try some of your ideas using the Family Historian Sample Project before going to far down a hypothesis.

The one overriding and absolute necessity is that the Place Name must be unique.
It is this that links together the Place Record and all Place fields with the same Place Name.

If you try and create a Place Record with a blank Place Name then FH soon turns it into (Unidentified place), or for 2nd record (Unidentified place) [2], or 3rd record (Unidentified place) [3], and so on.

1. is not possible. You cannot leave both Place and Address empty.

2. is not possible. If you copy all or part of the Standardized field into the record's Place Name then all the linked Place fields will change likewise. If you copy it into a solitary Place field, then a new Place Record will get created with that Place Name.

3. might have some limited possibilities. But remember every Place Name must be unique. So once you have chosen which part of Standardized you want as the Place Name then no other Place record can have that name.
e.g.
Standardized = 1, High Road, Stokeham, Newtown, Kent, AB1 2CD, England
If you set Place Name = Newtown, Kent, England then you cannot have any other Place records for Newtown, Kent, England with say a different Standardized/Address value.

What has been discovered recently is that Address parts can be hidden in Reports. So if some part of a location is replicated in both Address and Place then the replicated Address parts can be hidden.
e.g.
Address = 1, High Road, Stokeham, [[Newtown]], [[AB1 2CD]]
Place = Newtown, Kent, England, AB1 2CD
Then in Reports the default Place and Address displays would be:
Newtown, Kent, England, AB1 2CD
1, High Road, Stokeham

I am well advanced with a Plugin that can rearrange Address and Place CSV parts.
i.e.
Insert a <blank> column into each Address at say column 2 and shift its other columns along.
Move last column part from each Address to 1st column part of Place shifting the others along.
Copy each Place field into its associated Address field leaving the Place field intact.

However, it must still adhere to the rule that Place Names must be unique in each Place record.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

avatar
Shiriki
Diamond
Posts: 70
Joined: 27 Sep 2014 10:09
Family Historian: V7
Location: Dartford, Kent, UK

Re: Address, Place and Standardized Place

Post by Shiriki » 06 Feb 2015 20:09

Hi

Have taken your advice and had a play with some 'dummy' data.....yes you are correct.....as soon as one edits a Standarized Place field which is associated with say a 4 column CSV Place field then every Fact with an identical Place data entry ends up with the same Standardized Place.....so another hypothesis goes up in smoke.....thought I might have been onto something.......

Thank goodness for this dynamic forum.....and your excellent quick response Tatewise....

May I ask one other question (for today).....do you ever sleep?

Thanks again

Shiriki

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 27088
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Address, Place and Standardized Place

Post by tatewise » 06 Feb 2015 21:03

Oh Yes! But I dream about Plugins :lol:
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 27088
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Address, Place and Standardized Place

Post by tatewise » 13 Feb 2015 14:53

The Plugin I mentioned is now available as a prototype: Rearrange Address and Place Parts Plugin (12330).
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

Post Reply