Jump to content
stormsstephen

FTM16 to TMG7.04 import: no genders, few locations

Recommended Posts

I'm new to TMG and am experimenting with a small (4-person) FTM16 .ftw or .fbk import to TMG7.04. Using the advanced import wizard to do a direct import, the two children show a sex of "?" in the children window, even though they were properly gendered in FTM.

 

More important, my residence information ends up in the "memo" field (and the memo column is checked) rather than in the "location" fields as expected. In contrast, the birth and death locations are properly classified into location fields and the memo fields are empty, just as I would have expected. Same thing happens with my "education" and "burial" information from FTM, in which I have much "location" information.

 

I've tried adjusting the tag import procedure by ensuring that the "residence", "education", and "burial" tags are set to "Location" rather than to "Comment" or some combination of "location" and "comment", but I can't seem to populate the location fields, just the memo fields, with my FTM "Facts".

 

I don't see that any other FTM importers are having this problem - I wonder if I'm missing a step, or is there just going to be a lot of cleanup (distributing "memo" fragments into their proper "location" fields? My work FTM file has 1600 individuals, many with consistent location information in residence, burial, and even occupation facts.

 

Incidently, exporting to GEDCOM from FTM16, and then GEDCOM into TMG, seemed to work better in terms of populating the location fields and getting the genders correct, but everything I've read suggests that a direct import is better. How can I make my direct import fill the location fields?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sex flag issue with the direct import is fixed and I can send you updated files.

 

Please send me your database so that I can test the comment/location issue.

 

You can contact me by clicking on the link below.

Jim Byram

 

%%%%%%%%%%

 

With FTM 16, you might find that the GEDCOM import does as good a job as the direct import. It's worth making the comparison.

Edited by Jim Byram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst GEDCOM is supposed to be a "standard", the developers that use it must have very different ideas of what the standard is, or just choose to ignore it in their designs.

 

I have found an "empirical" approach works best, but it can be time consuming. Also, ensure that you look at the help sites like http://tmg.reigelridge.com/Importing.htm and http://www.tmgtips.com and the Rootsweb forum http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG.

 

 

If you have the luxury of creating the GEDCOM you can experiment with the various output options.

 

Usually I import other peoples, so I get what I'm given. So I use the different import options in TMG. Sometime if I know the source program, and I have a copy, I will put it back into that database and import from that programs files. In this situation I would try and get an original program file or backup as "all" the data will be there. But it is not always better than a GEDCOM.

 

As regards memos v notes. I have always had problems importing them to memos. They often go to "a big note" for each person. I then have to manually split them, or move to the correct tag. At least the data is there and can usually be used "as is" until I have time to tidy it up.

 

There are problems going from TMG too. Many programs will not accept Witness tags (I'm not sure if TMG actually exports them?). On the Tag Type definition, you need to match the GEDCOM export type to the destination. On the export to GEDCOM, I always use max GEDCOM line length of 246 (max allowed) so there is less truncation of data when input to certain programs (e.g. FTM for certain tags).

 

If you get someone else's GEDCOM, there notes/memos may well be truncated, so you might have to ask for Journal type reports etc to complete. I noticed that when I got a GEDCOM from Tribal Pages the max note/memo seemed to be 246 chars, so all that carefully detailed text was lost.

 

I know from my experience that Genes reunited and Ancestry trees have great difficulty with notes and sources from TMG, whereas the Rootsweb Trees have no trouble at all, it seems to take anything, no matter what the format (but not witness info).

 

 

If I've got one or two facts wrong please don't berate me, I just want to show that GEDCOM 5.5 is not the "standard" we would like it to be.

 

I am surprised that a new GEDCOM standard has not been developed to cater for the recent developments in IT, and to allow for things like witnesses, partners, and I'm sure there must be many other items that could do with well thought out standards. I suppose it would take the software developers and people like Ancestry to get together.

 

Jim Orrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick reply: an email with my database is on its way.

 

The sex flag issue with the direct import is fixed and I can send you updated files.

 

Please send me your database so that I can test the comment/location issue.

 

You can contact me by clicking on the link below.

Jim Byram

 

%%%%%%%%%%

 

With FTM 16, you might find that the GEDCOM import does as good a job as the direct import. It's worth making the comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the information about the GEDCOM import. I do indeed have the original file, and I should indeed try several GEDCOM export options from FTM16 while I continue to play with the direct import. I'm still finding my way around the TMG program, and looking for guidance in several of those websites you suggested.

 

I'm in no big rush to make that "final import" from FTM16 to TMG, at least not until I'm more comfortable with TMG. For the present, I'm continuing to edit for consistency in FTM (guided by the Master Place List output in TMG, for instance), and add new data in FTM, then export to TMG to test for consistency.

 

 

Whilst GEDCOM is supposed to be a "standard", the developers that use it must have very different ideas of what the standard is, or just choose to ignore it in their designs.

 

I have found an "empirical" approach works best, but it can be time consuming. Also, ensure that you look at the help sites like http://tmg.reigelridge.com/Importing.htm and http://www.tmgtips.com and the Rootsweb forum http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG.

 

 

If you have the luxury of creating the GEDCOM you can experiment with the various output options.

 

Usually I import other peoples, so I get what I'm given. So I use the different import options in TMG. Sometime if I know the source program, and I have a copy, I will put it back into that database and import from that programs files. In this situation I would try and get an original program file or backup as "all" the data will be there. But it is not always better than a GEDCOM.

 

As regards memos v notes. I have always had problems importing them to memos. They often go to "a big note" for each person. I then have to manually split them, or move to the correct tag. At least the data is there and can usually be used "as is" until I have time to tidy it up.

 

There are problems going from TMG too. Many programs will not accept Witness tags (I'm not sure if TMG actually exports them?). On the Tag Type definition, you need to match the GEDCOM export type to the destination. On the export to GEDCOM, I always use max GEDCOM line length of 246 (max allowed) so there is less truncation of data when input to certain programs (e.g. FTM for certain tags).

 

If you get someone else's GEDCOM, there notes/memos may well be truncated, so you might have to ask for Journal type reports etc to complete. I noticed that when I got a GEDCOM from Tribal Pages the max note/memo seemed to be 246 chars, so all that carefully detailed text was lost.

 

I know from my experience that Genes reunited and Ancestry trees have great difficulty with notes and sources from TMG, whereas the Rootsweb Trees have no trouble at all, it seems to take anything, no matter what the format (but not witness info).

 

 

If I've got one or two facts wrong please don't berate me, I just want to show that GEDCOM 5.5 is not the "standard" we would like it to be.

 

I am surprised that a new GEDCOM standard has not been developed to cater for the recent developments in IT, and to allow for things like witnesses, partners, and I'm sure there must be many other items that could do with well thought out standards. I suppose it would take the software developers and people like Ancestry to get together.

 

Jim Orrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whilst GEDCOM is supposed to be a "standard" ... I just want to show that GEDCOM 5.5 is not the "standard" we would like it to be. I am surprised that a new GEDCOM standard has not been developed to cater for the recent developments in IT ... I suppose it would take the software developers and people like Ancestry to get together.

Hi Jim,

 

As a follow-up, GEDCOM was not developed to be or intended to be a standard. It was defined by (and the term is reserved by) the Family and Church History department of the LDS church for use by its members to submit genealogy information to the church. Others chose to adopt that definition as a "defacto" standard as a convenient means to share genealogy data in a text file. Many software programs (such as TMG) also adopted it for import and export. In about 2001 the LDS church announced that it would not be defining a new GEDCOM as the existing definition was adequate for its internal needs. It implied that if software professionals needed something newer they should stop looking to the LDS church to modify/update GEDCOM. Since then many professional genealogy groups, especially GENTECH’s Lexicon Working Group, are attempting to develop a modern data interchange model. As I understand it, Bob Velke is a major contributor to that group. For a more complete description of the freezing of the GEDCOM definition, written by Bob Velke, see Dick Eastman's newsletter from Feb 2001 posted here.

 

Hope you find this informative,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm in no big rush to make that "final import" from FTM16 to TMG, at least not until I'm more comfortable with TMG. For the present, I'm continuing to edit for consistency in FTM (guided by the Master Place List output in TMG, for instance), and add new data in FTM, then export to TMG to test for consistency.

I also have not committed my data base to TMG, but do regular imports, both for the useful TMG features and to learn how to make my data fit.

 

One "wish-list" feature I would like is for TMG to remember the Import options from one import process to the next. Generally I always want to use the same options, although in some cases I want to play with the possible choices for just one option. It would also be useful if you could set all the options at the beginning and let the Import complete to the end without requiring user input part way through the job. Imports take enough time as it is and we should not have to come back to the computer to select a few more options before it churns away some more.

 

Pierce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....... written by Bob Velke, see Dick Eastman's newsletter from Feb 2001 posted here.

 

Hope you find this informative,

 

Informative, yes, but the date of 2001 leaves me a little despondent. I'll look out for news.

Thanks for the info

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could I reactivate this topic please.

 

I have developed a very similar problem when importing from FTM11 to TMG7.03/7.04UK Silver.

 

I first imported data from FTM11 in December 2008 and it worked well bearing in mind the usual problems with locations/comments. In March 2009 I imported more data from a different FTM11 database which was fine. In April 2009 I imported a 3rd set of data from a 3rd database and discovered that all my people were sexless and homeless. Sex was given as ? and location data entered under Residence was in the memo field, as was place of burial in that field. Place of birth and place of death might be in the memo field or might not and I can't work out why it is sometimes OK and others not.

 

When I bought TMG it was version 7.03 and I subsequently updated to v7.04 at an unremembered date this year - between March and April?

 

Jim Byram dealt with the original issue, could he please fix my problem too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct. With v7.04, sex is not imported and that is a known bug. And the Advanced Wizard selection of how comments/locations are imported does not work correctly.

 

The first issue has since been fixed but I don't believe that the second issue has been fixed as of this date but I'll need to check on that. I'll edit this as soon as I review the import changes since v7.04.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a follow-up, GEDCOM was not developed to be or intended to be a standard. It was defined by (and the term is reserved by) the Family and Church History department of the LDS church for use by its members to submit genealogy information to the church. Others chose to adopt that definition as a "defacto" standard as a convenient means to share genealogy data in a text file.

 

Minor correction the GEDCOM article on wikipedia refers to an email from Bill Harden who was the GEDCOM Product manger. Bill states that the LDS Church choose to create the standard from the beginning as a defacto standard.

 

Bill harden Subject: GEDCOM and Formal Standards Organizations Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 11:53:52 -0700 From: Bill Harten - Organization: Brigham Young University "why wasn't GEDCOM developed through a formal standards organization?..."Thus GEDCOM was born as a deliberate, de facto standard, to be followed only by those who felt it was in their best interest to do so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are correct. With v7.04, sex is not imported and that is a known bug. And the Advanced Wizard selection of how comments/locations are imported does not work correctly.

 

The first issue has since been fixed but I don't believe that the second issue has been fixed as of this date but I'll need to check on that. I'll edit this as soon as I review the import changes since v7.04.

 

Hi Jim

 

Thank you for your quick response.

 

It just so happens that I bought v7.03 on CD so, in view of your comments above, I dug it out and reinstalled it on one of my machines. I was able to import my troublesome data successfully and later transferred it to another machine running v7.04 where it is running happily.

 

I have looked on Wholly Genes website to try and find out if there is any warning about these problems with v7.04 but could not find anything, which may be my fault as I find the site rather complicated. Can anyone tell me if I have missed something.

 

I am now faced with the problem of whether I can trust any upgrades for TMG or would be better sticking to v7.03 and ignoring anything else. How do I tell?

 

Scotspine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am have the same problem importing from FTM 2005. All the sex flags came across as "?". Jim Byram. Can you please send me the patch with instructions on how to install it in TMG 7.04? I'm also having a problem with importing a gedcom from FTM 2005 into TMG 7.04. I have converted the file to ANSI but still get the UFT-8 error when I try the import.

 

Mike

mrupp@q.com

Edited by jmrupp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using a text file editor, like Notepad, check somewhere near the beginning of the file for a line that starts with:

1 CHAR

If you have re-saved the file and are sure it is ANSI, make sure this one line is:

1 CHAR ANSI

 

If it is not, and you are sure the file is ANSI, then edit the file and change that line and save it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two issues with the import of an FTM 16 or earlier database into TMG v7.04 have now been fixed. If you contact me directly, I'll send you updated import components and instructions. You can contact me by email by clicking on the link below.

Jim Byram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×