On 16/11/2011 01:07, Tony Rolfe wrote: > For Question 1, I really think that notes about a location belong with > the location, rather than the event where the location is used. If a > location no longer exists, but a family lived there for three censuses > and a bunch of marriage and birth events, then adding the data to each > person's copy of each event is so much data duplication. Updating the > information will be a nightmare. Imagine that you add a new location > from a census document and find it doesn't exist now. You look at the > enumerator's header sheet and find that it was in an area bounded by > four streets. So you add this info to the events. Later on you find > out a bit more detail, say that it was renamed in 1940. You have to add > that to all copies of all events which use that location. Then you find > out it was demolished in 1970. Again, add that to all copies of all > events. If the info is in the location notes it only needs to be > updated in one place. So, it should be sourceable. > > I'm going to report it as a bug.
It is not a bug. It is not a case of a Source field not working correctly, it is a case of the programmers not including one. You may wish to suggest this as a new feature but I don't think reporting it as a bug will get you very far. -- Jenny M Benson Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ 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
