Jerry, There is NO "standard" that would work for all of us for all locations. It is a Master Location List for all locations to be listed together. Perhaps you would like Millennia to provide a "3-field Master Location List", a "4-field Master Location List", a "5-field Master Location List", etc. What would you do then if you have a location that is only the county, state, and country (if in the United States) and then you find out the town? Delete the 3-field location and create a new 4-field location? With one Master Location List, you would modify the existing one to now include a 4th field for the town.
I don't believe that it is necessary to force any location into 4 fields or any specific number of fields. Using the Master Location List for all locations in any country as it is works. Perhaps it would serve every one of us better if there was no more reference to 4 fields in the Location List. If it is in the Help file or online tutorials, I would suggest that it be removed. This topic has been the subject of more discussions on this list than any other. Jerry, you and I have had similar discussions about locations before. I have locations ranging from 1 field (Canada) up to 7 fields (Saint Clement Church, 8155, Ritter Avenue, Center Line, Macomb County, Michigan, United States). Now, I'm sure that some people will ask about the "8155" as a separate field. We've already gone down that road before and that discussion can be found in the archives. But as I have said many times before, if you want to force locations in Europe or anywhere else in the world into the so-called "standard" of 4 fields, by all means, go right ahead. With Legacy's flexibility, you can do whatever you want with your location list. Mary -----Original Message----- From: Jerry [mailto:jerrysemailgro...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:55 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] How to document Locations in Europe 5 Fields vs 4 Fields Hi Ron. I guess it will never be settled unless they come up with some kind of standard that works for all of us. To me it is ugly to have dis-similar entities sort with each other, but I was hopeful that someone who uses the right to left method would tell me how I could still sort correctly and use the varied system. As far as I can tell, it is not possible, so I can very easily live with the extra commas to create the kind of "like" sorting that I am committed to seeing. Forcing Europe into the "standard" four positions - simply works and works well. I'm sorry you are offended by it. For Europe, for example, I never have a division immediately next to England, for example, because I know you never use STATES or PROVINCES and I have reserved the THIRD division from the left for STATES or PROVINCES. Like I say, it simply works and I haven't seen anything that works better, but if you could show me how, I would change. Sorry, I'm just going to let it rest unless a new person asks the question again and then I'll try to contact them off-line. Jerry Boor - http://www.MerriamFamilyTree.org On 03/11/2012 06:20 PM, Ron Ferguson wrote: > Jerry, > > If a blank between two commas doesn't signify that something is > missing, then it signifies nothing at all. In which case, as you say, > it is simply there to force a correct location into an incorrect > location just to make something look pretty. Frankly I find such > constructs both confusing to those unfamiliar with the location, and > anything but pretty - I think that they are ugly. > > Ron Ferguson > http://www.fergys.co.uk/ > > Ron Ferguson > http://www.fergys.co.uk/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:31 PM > To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] How to document Locations in Europe 5 Fields > vs 4 Fields > > I don't agree that just because you have a space between two commas, > it has to imply that something is missing. Sure it can be, but for > those of us who want a very organized approach, it just makes sense > because it does allow one to sort by the various divisions, whenever they > apply. > > If you can truly do that with a right to left sort without regard to > how many divisions are used, can someone provide some concrete > examples on a website or a snippet of your Legacy code off-line or > something? I really don't mean to be hard-headed on this, but I've so > far not seen sorting work so well without the standard divisions. > > Jerry Boor - http://www.MerriamFamilyTree.org > > On 03/11/2012 08:52 AM, Jenny M Benson wrote: >> On 11/03/2012 12:07, John Magyari wrote: >>> Thanks for everyone's ideas. >>> Some of my Polish time periods use 4 some 5 positions >>> >>> I decided to force all 5 location positions into 4. >>> Having same number of fields helps with sorting. >>> >>> Ideally if would be nice to specify Number of locations field >>> MAX. Then if entered with less fields specify which fields to >>> become null. >>> ie. MaxPositions = 5, LessPositionOrder if less 2,3if >>> less than MAX ie For Me for Poland city, administration, county, >>> state, country (1,2,3,4,5) If less fields entered enter Nulls city, >>> county, state, country (Null 1 field - admin) city, state, country >>> (Null other 2 fields -admin, county) city, state (Null other 3 >>> fields) state (Null other 4 fields) >>> >>> >>> I will use 4 fields, and in the process converted all locations with >>> fewer positions to 4 position system. >> >> Surely the aim should always be to enter *accurate* information and >> you are not doing that. >> >> If you are "forcing" 5 elements into 4, are you implying that, there >> is a place called "Village Town", when in fact it is a place called >> "Village" with a place called "Town"? And if you make a 3-element >> location fit 4 fields, you are presumably adding an extra comma >> somewhere which inevitably implies that there is a missing element, >> but in your case there isn't! >> >> Because I include complete addresses in the location field, I have >> anywhere from 1 element (only know the country) to 6 or 7 elements in >> a location. If I want to see them grouped together I sort them from >> right to left. It's not a problem. >> > > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ > Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ > Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on > our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). > To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
