* A little quirk that has me annoyed... how to fix?

[RandyP]

Over the past few weeks, I've been doing through the various images I have (i.e., US Census records, military records, city directories, et al) and gleaning information such as occupation and street addresses.

See the example.jpg as well, an example of what I mean.



When I downloaded a fresh copy of the GEDCOM and imported it into FH4. While the occupations showed up (from the descriptive line, no less), I've had no luck with addresses whatsoever. They're simply not anywhere in the file. All it has is the city location, no address whatsoever.

I decided to try a comparison run with RootsMagic, and it displayed both the occupation and full address data correctly.

Dunno what I'm doing wrong here, or is it a limitation of FH ?

ID:4267

[Jane]

I presume you are using Ancestry?

If you look at the Raw GedCom file, you downloaded, in notepad or similar, do the addresses occur? If so on what line format?

If you look at the Facts in the downloaded file on all the All Tab do you have any UDR lines?

[RandyP]

Ancestry: Yes. Should have specified that before, sorry.

The addresses occur:

1 RESI 109 N. Thompson
2 DATE 1937
2 PLAC Jackson, Jackson, Michigan, USA
2 SOUR @S1398407558@
3 NOTE [Removed the url for the tree from here]
3 NOTE
3 DATA
4 TEXT Residence date: 1937Residence place: Jackson, Michigan

Not sure what you mean about UDR line, but there's one that says _UNCAT 109 N. Thompson (in the program itself, not the GEDCOM)

EDIT: Also noticed that some lines in the sources that also have the _uncat tag, such as notes where I put down Ward 2 for a census record location.

[Jane]

I would have expected the Address data in an ADDR line rather than on the main RESI line.

If you want to you could use TEXTPAD to replace

RESI with RESI /n 2 ADDR
To split the Address data to the Address line.

[SimonOrde]

The GEDCOM spec does not allow any data to follow the RESI tag on the same line (unlike many other tags); so Ancestry are wrong to put address information there - and that is why FH will treat this line as invalid and ignore it, and any other 'subsidiary' lines that add more details for that tag. Did you not get an exception report that listed the line as invalid? These would have been marked 'EXCLUDE: invalid line' and also 'EXCLUDED BRANCH LINE' for any subsidiary lines.

However, even if Ancestry are handling this incorrectly, our policy is to be as tolerant as possible of other applications' GEDCOM errors, so we will look at this again, and see what can be done to handle it better.

[RandyP]

Simon, I indeed did: an 898kb long file with a massive number of lines, such as:

l.68 - INFO ONLY: Loaded uncategorised data (GEDCOM extension): '2 _APID 1030'

l.1800 - INFO ONLY: Detected & fixed field format error (data loaded using Uncategorised Data Field): '1 RESI Information is from husband's (C D Edwin Carl) WW I draft card.'

l.5160 - INFO ONLY: Detected & fixed field format error (data loaded using Uncategorised Data Field): '1 BURI See attached funeral service card.'

That sort of thing. It seems to me most of those errors are from data being entered on the Description/note line at Ancestry.

If you desire the log file, I'd be happy to send it to you.