Family Historian User Group

I decided recently to try correct my Gedcom problems caused by working across 3 programs, some with a cousin years back. The main two tree sources for a cousin were FTM, and Ancestry trees. Both a little difficult with data transfer to F Historian.
I have read through a lot of posts on here for data transfer, and it still seems there are many problems. One in particular for me recently was using Places/Addresses. I found FTM have effectively allowed separation of this data in their ‘Resolve’ place problem, which looked like it had split the fileds in a similar fashion to Family Historian, EG two fields. But on export it is put back together as one data string, in the PLAC field only. Has anyone solved this and the many of the other problems that data transfer from FTM causes, and/or the reversing of the process, as it is useful to sometimes have a tree on Ancestry , so if can get data across to FTM and then link its not likely to be as error prone?
I have looked at the Plugin for Place/Address, but it looked a little confusing, so I will come back to it when more time to play and understand it. Hopefully you can tell me if I have missed anything that would make life simpler?

I used a small program called FT analyser, which helped identify many simple problems, and started correcting them , at least as far as my limited knowledge allows, ☹
So I also Decided to run another program I had come across called Gedcom Valdator, and don’t understand all the reported problems. Blank white spaces etc and some others are obviously down to me. However the tool seems to be reporting problems that look to me as if it might a fault in how GEdcom is interpreted when Family Historian is written, for example Use of a Source Tag under a note field or entry. This is probably a bit beyond me, so I am correcting those I believe are down to my errors where possible, But wouldn’t mind some advice on the other faults reported as in images? It may be that you will say the writers of the tool have it wrong, as it seems so many software writers seem to interpret Gedcom differently and its use of fields, which makes it a nightmare for us without in depth programming ability (or understanding).

In this particular Ged it says I have 140 of these errors. I have 23 Gedcoms to tidy up! This report was using Best Practise rather than the Standards only option rather than


Many thanks for help. I am away starting late tomorrow at a family funeral for a few days, but will check in for answers.
Bill Read

Images seem to to have attached sorry

Bill,

I can only speak to the GEDCOM errors.

However the tool seems to be reporting problems that look to me as if it might a fault in how GEdcom is interpreted when Family Historian is written, for example Use of a Source Tag under a note field or entry.

Did you run the error checker before importing the GEDCOM into FH? The errors could be the fault of the previous program as well!

The only permitted tags to be part of a Note_Structure is the NOTE, CONC, CONT tags. A SOUR is not allowed!

Looking at the other errors I would agree with the GEDCOM checker.

The last entry "The Family has no parents" is only informational!

Bill,

But wouldn’t mind some advice on the other faults reported as in images? It may be that you will say the writers of the tool have it wrong, as it seems so many software writers seem to interpret Gedcom differently and its use of fields, which makes it a nightmare for us without in depth programming ability (or understanding).

Yes, my experience with many genealogy programs (I've used at least 6 or 7 since the 1980's) that they really don't know GEDCOM very well.

It is very hard to help you with your GEDCOM errors without seeing the offending GEDCOM file. Do Not post the file here!

The MARR tag has no place in the INDI record, this is only allowed in the FAM record!
The PLAC (Place_Structure) does not allow a SOUR tag. The SOUR tag is associated with the "Fact" not the PLAC.
The IDNO tag requires the TYPE subtag and would look something like this:

KFN is correct that most genealogy products do not implement GEDCOM very well.
However, the GEDCOM Validator is very thorough and quite accurate, but depending on whether you set Validation mode top right to Best practice or Standards only you get different error messages.

FH is also very good at generating valid GEDCOM but there are some 'known' special cases.
FH does allow the tag 'SOUR' under 'NOTE', 'PLAC' & 'OBJE' tags to maintain compatibility with GEDCOM 5.5 and GEDCOM 7.0 and avoid users upgrading from FH V6 (GEDCOM 5.5) having to rework those Source Citations.
So those error messages can be ignored. Click the Code header funnel filter and untick the codes to ignore.

Ignore the messages regarding 'white space characters' and 'does not meet the minimum length of 1 character' that are unlikely to cause any problems. Similarly, click the Code header funnel filter and untick the codes to ignore.

The FHUG Knowledge Base Importing to Family Historian advice includes the Handling Uncategorised Data Fields advice.
I strongly advise that you run the UDF List plugin as explained in that advice to identify the invalid tags that have been imported from other products such as 'WWW' under 'DATA', 'MARR' under 'INDI', and 'SOUR' under 'SEX'.
You may need to ask specific questions for advice about how to fix those UDF.

I suspect that after ignoring the messages I've mentioned above and fixing the UDF there will be only a few errors left.

As a general rule, it is not feasible to migrate back and forth between products using GEDCOM unless you restrict your data to using a constrained subset of standard GEDCOM structures that all the products support.
The best practice is to use just one product as your master database and export from there to other products as needed.
If FH is your master database, then the Export Gedcom File plugin supports most popular products by converting the GEDCOM structures as necessary. To sync with Ancestry 'hints' there is the Ancestry Synchronization plugin.

I suggest that first of all you go through the GEDCOM Validator section of https://www.dataminingdna.com/two-gedco ... h-is-best/. Note that it says at the start:

Before you open a file, I suggest you check the validation mode on the top right of the screen. There are only two choices: “Best practice” or “Standards only”.

I suggest you start with “Standards only” so that you’re not overwhelmed by a massive list of problems. As the name suggests, “Standards only” looks for clear violations as opposed to items that flout recommended formats.

I've no idea what GEDCOM Validator considers to be "best practice" - best avoid such debatable ground.

Re "Use of a Source Tag under a note field or entry" - if this is what I think it is (and it may not be) this was a complete piece of idiocy by FamilySearch who decided that, in this version of GEDCOM, Notes should not have sources. Calico Pie decided to ignore this removal of sources for notes, and lo and behold, the next version of GEDCOM has put them back in. (Mike Tate beat me to this...)

I'd also suggest you think about why you want to run GEDCOM Validator on the file out of Family Historian. FH is known to be excellent for compliance with GEDCOM standards - it's not perfect but among the best. Clearly, FH is coping with anything on your file and if you do export it, the recipient program is more likely to have problems with its own understanding of GEDCOM, rather than with those odd bits that FH doesn't get right.

KFN wrote: ↑

22 May 2023 14:10

The MARR tag has no place in the INDI record, this is only allowed in the FAM record!

I recognise that from the sync plugin. Ancestry does not export family records correctly in its GEDCOM. In particular, where there is a family with only one spouse (e.g. a marriage to an unknown partner), all the FAM events are stored under the INDI instead!

The gedcom in discussion is one originally constructed in Family Historian, though some years ago bits imported via Gedcom from FTM.

I am away for a few days as my Uncles funeral, but will read these replies, and comment when i get a chance. Thanks everyone so far for responses.

Bill

Thanks for advice, I have ( slowly, as had lots on elsewhere), been looking through as advice given. I will do more as I can, and any more questions come back for advice, I remmeber using UDf tool before and had some fun!

So thanks again all
Bill