Brian wrote: "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? "
Brian, I opened it back up in Legacy, clicked on an individual's book icon, which of course brought up a list of sources and ALL the detail fields were blank. I also tried copying one of the sources via the clipboard icon as though I were going to re-use it. Then I clipped on the ---- icon (to insert the same source) and the detail field was empty. Ron, you asked why I selected the generic GEDCOM. I did so because I am planning to export the gedcom to WikiTree. I have not tried the Basic format. I thought I read (probably in Legacy Help) that it gave only basic dates & places? Pat On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Ron Ferguson <[email protected]>wrote: > 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" <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] > >Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 7:16 PM > >To: [email protected] > >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/[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 > > 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
