Event Tags for Land Transactions

[Jim Rassette 0]

TMG does not seem to have any tag types that deal directly with land transactions; buying, selling, grants, etc. I do not remember any discussions in this forum on the subject either. There are several source types that will handle the documentation but no event tags that are specific to land transactions.

 

I have a couple of families that bought and sold land that is different from their primary residence, and I want to document the events which show a pattern in their lives about how and why they moved from place to place. I know I can create custom tags but I am curious, how do most people handle the subject in TMG?

 

I am looking for suggestions.

 

Thanks,

 

Jim Rassette

[TPG 0]

I simply created a custom LAND tag.

 

The characteristics are:

type- custom;

group - other event;

gedcom - prop;

sentence: [:CR:][P1G]< and [P2]> conducted a land transaction< [D]>< [L]><. [iTAL:][M][:ITAL]>;

witness sentence: [:CR:][W] was mentioned in a land transaction conducted by [P1]< and [P2]>< [D]>< [L]>

[Michael Hannah 0]

Hi, Jim,

 

Tom is correct that many create a custom tag type, but you could just use a standard Note tag and construct your desired sentence in the Memo.

 

You might also post this question on the user ListServ here. That list (maintained only by users and not sponsored by Wholly Genes) generally has more ordinary users monitoring it than this forum. Thus you are likely to get more suggestions there about how to deal with a specific kind of event. I know some users have mentioned previously that they created whole sets of custom tag types to deal with land transactions, including custom roles for those tags. Asking there could get you a lot of ideas.

[Terry Reigel 0]

Jim,

 

I have four custom land tags:

 

Land Buy:

Principal: [P]

 

Land Sale:

Principal: [PF]

 

Land B/S:

Principal: Enter Roles for Buyer and Seller

Buyer: [R:Buyer] bought from [R:Seller]

Seller: [R:Seller] sold to [R:Buyer]

 

Land Grant:

Principal: [PF] granted a patent for

 

In each, the first Memo segment is used to describe the land ("40 acres on the river") and the second segment for other information, such as price and the name of the other party. The Buy/Sell tag is used when both parties are entered in my database.

[Jim Rassette 0]

Thanks, TPG, Michael and Terry for your suggestions.

 

I saw Terry's examples this afternoon as I was reviewing the archives on the TMG-L list server suggested by Michael. Those examples will cover most of my needs.

 

However, I still need to come up with some more customized tags for the Homestead process leading up to the Land Grant my ancestor received in Alberta, Canada in 1911.

 

The TMG-L archives has given me some ideas.

 

Thanks for your help,

 

Jim

[Jim Rassette 0]

I forgot to ask, are there specific GEDCOM labels that I should use when creating these custom Land tag types?

[Michael Hannah 0]

No, Jim,

 

I checked the official list of all standard GEDCOM tag types and there are none dealing with Land issues. Thus when you define your custom tag type in TMG, on the "Other" tab of the Tag Type Definition you should check the "1 EVEN" box which is how a custom event type can be defined in GEDCOM. That will then output your custom TMG Tag Type name as the "2 TYPE" in GEDCOM. Of course, you do remember that there is no way in GEDCOM to identify "witnesses" to a tag, only the Principal? One of the many things the old GEDCOM standard is simply incapable of expressing.

[Terry Reigel 0]

Jim,

 

Also, GEDCOM doesn't accept two-principal tags except for recognized "family" tags, such as marriage and census. I'm not sure whether "EVEN" tags qualify - maybe Michael can check.

 

As to the homestead grant tags, I use the Land Grant Tag Type I described above and add the information about whichever type it was in the second Memo segment.

[Jim Rassette 0]

Thanks for the GEDCOM information. I rarely use GEDCOM files but I may need to in the future.

 

I have several Homestead files from the Alberta Provincial Archives which lead up to the granting of the land patent and contain different dates and information:

 

Application for a Homestead Entry - request for permission to reside on, improve and cultivate the land

 

Declaration of Abandonment - request to abandon (with reasons) a previous homestead entry in order to take up another homestead

 

Application for Homestead Patent - request for the Land Grant that includes information on improvements, length of residence, cultivation, livestock, etc. along with the sworn statements of two people verifying the improvements, etc. to the land

 

The names of the tags are easy but I have to think a little on the sentence structure and roles unless I freeform everything in the memo.

[Terry Reigel 0]

Jim,

 

I have very similar information on my Dad's uncle. His narrative, with an explanation of how I created it, are in my article on Creating Flowing Narratives. Perhaps you will find some ideas there.

[Michael Hannah 0]

Also, GEDCOM doesn't accept two-principal tags except for recognized "family" tags, such as marriage and census... maybe Michael can check.

The following is probably more detail than you or Jim want, Terry, but I thought I would post it here so other users may find it in the future.

 

Unfortunately GEDCOM is at the same time more limited and more flexible in its capabilities than that. Any TMG event with two Principals cannot be exported to GEDCOM if those Principals are not married, regardless of whether the type of event is recognized by GEDCOM. Family (i.e. two-Principal) events in the GEDCOM family record can only be shared by the individuals if they are also designated as explicitly married by HUSB and WIFE entries in the family event. Even if the two Principals are married the event is exported as a family event, not an individual event. This is the explicit design of the GEDCOM 5.5 specs. Only family events are recognized by GEDCOM specs as capable of having two Principals, all other GEDCOM events must have only one Principal.

 

If they are married, GEDCOM defines the following as "family" events (with its event code): Annulment (ANUL), Census (CENS), Divorce (DIV), Divorce filing (DIVF), Engagement (ENGA), Marriage (MARR), Banns (MARB), Marriage Contract (MARC), Marriage License (MARL), and Marriage Settlement (MARS). In addition, GEDCOM also defines a generic custom family event type (EVEN) which will be followed by the custom name of that event (TYPE). Therefore any TMG event with two Principals can be exported to GEDCOM as a family event if they are married. But if a TMG tag has two Principals, and they are not married, the entire tag is excluded from the GEDCOM output. This, and no ability to link witnesses, are probably the two most limiting restrictions of GEDCOM. However other TMG data can be lost/excluded on export to GEDCOM such as non-traditional relationships, non-primary relationships, relationship notes/sources, parent(s) of unknown sex, unwed parents, exhibits, research tasks, and sources of sources, among others.

 

GEDCOM is very appropriate for exporting and sharing the basic BMDB data of a genealogy line of parents and their children, but is incapable of including many of the features and data now in modern genealogy software programs like TMG.

 

Hope this information is helpful,

[Jim Byram 0]

Any TMG event with two Principals cannot be exported to GEDCOM if those Principals are not married, regardless of whether the type of event is recognized by GEDCOM.

 

A tag with two principals can be exported to GEDCOM if the principals share a Marriage group tag or if the two principals are the parents of a child. Either condition allows a family tag to be created in the GEDCOM.

[Terry Reigel 0]

Unfortunately GEDCOM is at the same time more limited and more flexible in its capabilities than that. Any TMG event with two Principals cannot be exported to GEDCOM if those Principals are not married, regardless of whether the type of event is recognized by GEDCOM. Family (i.e. two-Principal) events in the GEDCOM family record can only be shared by the individuals if they are also designated as explicitly married by HUSB and WIFE entries in the family event.

Yes, I knew that the two principals in a family event had to be a "family" - that is married or have children together. I should have mentioned that restriction.

Even if the two Principals are married the event is exported as a family event, not an individual event.

That's often a problem, because the event, if imported, may not appear in the receiving application where one might expect it.

In addition, GEDCOM also defines a generic custom family event type (EVEN) which will be followed by the custom name of that event (TYPE). Therefore any TMG event with two Principals can be exported to GEDCOM as a family event if they are married.

...or have children together, as Jim mentions.

 

Any event, if the type is set to EVEN. But few of the standard Tag Types are. So if one wanted to export an event with a non-family tag type one would have to change the GEDCOM tag type to EVEN, with possible consequences to the receiving application.

[Michael Hannah 0]

Any event, if the type is set to EVEN.

Or the two-principal event can be set to export as one of the recognized GEDCOM "family" events listed above.

[Jim Rassette 0]

Thanks, everyone, for the GEDCOM tips. I hope I won't have to worry about that.

 

Terry, your examples have given me a few ideas. Thanks.

[JAL in EM 0]

I am also interested in how other users have handled land transactions as I am working on a database of people who have lived in/been associated with one specific town. I have created two custom tags, one land and the other deed. BUT, I have two problems I have not figured out a good way to deal with:

 

1. Has anyone figured a way to create a "non-person" individual to participate in a tag event: e.g., a property transaction between a corporation -- say the Mississippi Land Company -- and a person. Being able to have such a corporation appear in many land transactions over a period of years allows you to track the "genealogy" of pieces of property down thru many generations and perhaps several corporations or associations.

 

2. Has anyone figured a way to have MANY individuals associated with one event: e.g., say a convention or corporate meeting on some date where there is a President, Vice-president, secretary, board of directors (with several directors), etc., etc., and still have the text produced in a report make sense? I have been able to partially fix this for my Land Tag where I have defined primary roles for Grantor, Grantee, etc - I can select two primary individuals to be Grantor and Grantee and then add additional Grantor and Grantee witness roles and a the sentences seem to work OK; but other examples produce convoluted sentences in reports.

[TPG 0]

Michael Hannah:

 

I believe that you are confusing problems with the TMG process of exporting an equivalent GEDCOM with innate problems with the GEDCOM standard itself. The GEDCOM standard and TMG envision slightly different genealogy models. The flaws you cite would seem to be more associated with the TMG process of converting between the models than with the GEDCOM standard itself.

 

One example of this, which you address, is when the TMG model has an event with two principals. The TMG process of exporting-to GEDCOM has several choices: export identical events associated with each of the relevant principals, create a FAM event but only if the two principals are married, or ignore the event entirely. The first choice would seem to be the most logical; the second choice could well be misleading; the third choice makes no sense whatsoever. The TMG export-to-GEDCOM process does not take the first choice. I have never understood this choice, except as a matter of programming convenience.

 

Although I believe that the TMG model is more flexible (after all, I do use TMG as my primary software package), it is not without limitations of its own. As on example, one cannot without artificial mechanisms, however, directly handle events with three or more principals, which is the case in this thread. In addition, I believe you exaggerating in at least a few of the cases which you claim the GEDCOM standard cannot handle - e. g. unwed parents, non-primary relationships, exhibits, etc.