On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:17:29 -0400, "BG Johnson" <b...@brmemc.net> wrote:
>I believe that this is a case where separate fields would have been better. I cannot say without more study. But given that the location fields probably came long before some of the other features that use them now (geolocs, mapping, isearch), I would give the Legacy authors the benefit of the doubt. Hindsight is always 20-20. The question then becomes... Is there a benefit to going back and implementing some sort of PLACE-PART (see GENTECH Genealogical Data Model) structure IF the worst case scenario requires each user to manually deconstruct the location names? (Can't assume that a mechanized conversion is possible.) -- Dennis Kowallek (LTools/Custom Programming) http://zippersoftware.com/ltools/index.htm http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ltools NOTE TO LUG USERS: Use plain text if you want me to read your post. 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
