Family Historian User Group

My husband and I are working on a one-place study.

One of our interests is tracking where people lived at different periods in time. To that end, we collect as many addresses as possible using censuses, directories, phone books, electoral rolls, etc.

Up to now, we have been using the Residence fact to record this information. We also use the Property attribute to record addresses which were owned by the person, but not their place of residence.

In analysing this data, it often becomes clear that a particular address was probably a place of business and not a residence. I've thought about perhaps creating a custom event Business or something to that effect for these cases.

I'm wondering if anybody else has dealt with this situation and has any suggestions.

Thanks

If it was a place of business, then the person presumably had an associated job or occupation.
So record their Occupation and the Address will be their business premises.
The advantage is that Occupation is a standard GEDCOM fact rather than a custom fact and thus more widely supported.

The source may provide their occupation, but not always, especially in the case of women. Even if there's a trade listed in the directory (like tailor or watch maker), it's highly improbable that the woman actually engaged in that trade (in the 19th century). I would say that it's more likely that she inherited a business when her husband died, kept her name on it, but hired a man to mind the shop.

We also don't put addresses on occupation, at least up to now.

I'd rather keep the addresses separate from occupation.

Proprietor covers a lot of possibilities.
But otherwise, a custom fact Business would work.

Or, if you want to avoid 'Custom' Facts you could use Possessions, which could cover Freehold/Copyhold/Leasehold 'title' which was a qualification for a voting entitlement (depending on value), even if the actual use of the premises was by some other party.

Mervyn

I assumed that was what Shosh meant by: "We also use the Property attribute to record addresses which were owned by the person, but not their place of residence."

Yes, that is correct. Property = Possessions

For the purpose of recording business addresses, however, I would not make the assumption that the address was owned by the individual. Therefore, the use of Possessions would be incorrect.

How about adding a fact named 'business' or whatever you want to call it.
You can add any fact you like. I have added one called 'newspaper reports'

Victor

Victor, that is what Shosh said she was already considering, in her first post.

Yes, all too often people don't seem to bother to read the earlier postings.