Pat, I do not understand why you selected to use the generic GEDCOM, if exporting from Legacy to Legacy then the Legacy GEDCOM should have been selected. The point is that because SW is non-standard for GEDCOM purposes custom tags have to be used. Work which I did a few years back indicated that the Legacy GEDCOM did allow for the import/export of Legacy generated GEDCOMS. However an independent report (Seaver, I think) suggested that this was not the case.
I am surprised that you say that the Basic format does not work, I would have expected that it would for all version, but then I do not know your construct. The behaviour you report is, btw., common to all programs which use SW style sourcing, because, and I repeat, it is due to the prehistoric nature of the GEDCOM standard. It has been reported on this list before, certainly by myself, and maybe others, although I cannot remember Legacy ever commenting. Personally, other than for testing, I would never use a GEDCOM to transfer to and from Legacy but the direct Legacy transfer option, which does work properly. Ron Ferguson http://www.fergys.co.uk/ GOONS #5307 "Brian L. Lightfoot" <br...@the-lightfoots.com> wrote: >Without wading all the way back through this thread, I have to now ask this >question…what makes you think there are no source details in your exported >gedcom? In other words, exactly what or how are you trying to view this data? >You had one message that said “in checking your gedcom…” so just what does >“checking” mean, that is, how are you viewing the data? > > > >The details may be there but something or somehow they are not being displayed >depending upon your method of displaying it. Have you tried sending a sample >.GED to someone else to have them confirm that your source details are indeed >off to never-never land? > > > >Brian in CA > > > > > >From: Pat Hickin [mailto:pph...@gmail.com] >Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 7:16 PM >To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com >Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] does gedcom drop source details??? > > > >Brian,Thanks for your reply. I tried that but still no source details! > > > >Ron, to respond to some of your points: > > > >You wrote: > > > >1) "By generic, do you mean a generic GEDCOM as selected from the drop-down >list." > >Ans.: YES! > > > >2) "Ah!!! I just realised that you are probably using Source Writer " > >Ans.: Now I usually use source writer but MANY of my entries are in the >basic,original syste.-- I don't know what it's called. Doesn't matter-- I >don't have ANY source details. > > > >3) "Even if the GEDCOM contains the Source Details the chances of them being >imported into another program are just about zero." > >Ans.: I am exporting from Legacy & into Legacy. (I chose the generic style >because I want to upload eventually into WikiTree. > > > >I don't EVER remember anybody discussing this before -- if the source details >are dropped then one has to become an extreme splitter or else the sourcing >info will be extremely vague. I have zillions of entries under Findagrave, >for example, with only the Detail info to distinguish one entry from another. > > > >Also, it seems to me we should be warned if Legacy introduces something new >that means it will no longer "travel" via .gedcom, but that may be asking too >much. The more I work with Legacy, the more I realize how complicated it all >is!! > > > >Pat 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
