I have just received a fascinating GEDCOM file that I could import into
gramps. However, there are some tags 'recognised but not supported', for example: 3 _LOC @P29@ Lines like these apparently point to lines at the end of the file that contain, e.g.: 0 @P29@ _LOC 1 NAME Nordhausen And those records at the end of the file are not imported with the remark: "Records not imported into Top Level: Line ignored as not understood Line 2842: 0 P29 _LOC Skipped subordinate line Line 2843: 1 NAME Laon Neustrien" Is it possible to modify these lines to make them importable, does anyone know? Cheers Harvey ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Gramps-users mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users |
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
|
Hi Sam, yes, you are right it would be the German extension. I am not sure I could construct a valid file, so I will send it for you to do. Cheers Harvey On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 08:03 +1000, Sam Manzi wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Gramps-users mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users |
Hi Harvey,
did you get a solution, how to replace the _LOC tags with standard Gedcom 5.5 tags? Thanks Markus |
No, as far as I can tell! I tried looking for the (10-year-old!)
Bug/Feature request in Mantis with no success! So I wonder if it has been 'retired'. But again, maybe I'm too dim to know how to find it. I thought I had added a note to it, but it doesn't turn up in the filter. Is there an easy way to edit a GEDCOM file to replace _LOC tags with standard Gedcom 5.5 tags? I don't really want to learn GEDCOM 'language'. Cheers Harvey On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 01:26 -0800, m.miesbauer wrote: > Hi Harvey, > > did you get a solution, how to replace the _LOC tags with standard > Gedcom > 5.5 tags? > > Thanks > Markus > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/GED > COM-Tags-recognised-but-not-supported-tp4676901p4679306.html > Sent from the GRAMPS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned > dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for > an > account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and > projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition. > http://sdm.link/oxford > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > [hidden email] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > https://gramps-project.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition. http://sdm.link/oxford _______________________________________________ Gramps-users mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users https://gramps-project.org |
On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 11:25 +0100, Harvey Nimmo wrote:
> No, as far as I can tell! I tried looking for the (10-year-old!) > Bug/Feature request in Mantis with no success! So I wonder if it has > been 'retired'. But again, maybe I'm too dim to know how to find it. > I > thought I had added a note to it, but it doesn't turn up in the > filter. > > Is there an easy way to edit a GEDCOM file to replace _LOC tags with > standard Gedcom 5.5 tags? I don't really want to learn GEDCOM > 'language'. > > Cheers > Harvey > > > > > On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 01:26 -0800, m.miesbauer wrote: > > > > Hi Harvey, > > > > did you get a solution, how to replace the _LOC tags with standard > > Gedcom > > 5.5 tags? > > > > Thanks > > Markus ...sorry for the top post...the habit of a lifetime :-) The feature request is #688 at https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=688 There has been no movement on it. Cheers Harvey ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition. http://sdm.link/oxford _______________________________________________ Gramps-users mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users https://gramps-project.org |
In reply to this post by Harvey Nimmo
In the file of the bug request (Vorfahren von Zacharias Bötticher.ged) the _LOC entries only contains the PLAC names e.g.:
0 @P41@ _LOC 1 NAME St. Aegidien Osterode and this NAME is already given to the PLAC tag: 0 @I1@ INDI 1 NAME Zacharias /Bötticher/ 1 SEX M 1 OCCU Pastor 1 RELI ev 1 BIRT 2 DATE ABT 1610 2 PLAC St. Aegidien Osterode,,, 3 _LOC @P41@ So I think that no information should be lost from this import. You can prove it in your program. If Zacharias Bötticher has the birth place St. Aegidien Osterode. Everything's OK. Greetings Markus |
On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 04:22 -0800, m.miesbauer wrote:
> In the file of the bug request (Vorfahren von Zacharias > Bötticher.ged) the > _LOC entries only contains the PLAC names e.g.: > 0 @P41@ _LOC > 1 NAME St. Aegidien Osterode > > and this NAME is already given to the PLAC tag: > 0 @I1@ INDI > 1 NAME Zacharias /Bötticher/ > 1 SEX M > 1 OCCU Pastor > 1 RELI ev > 1 BIRT > 2 DATE ABT 1610 > 2 PLAC St. Aegidien Osterode,,, > 3 _LOC @P41@ > > So I think that no information should be lost from this import. > You can prove it in your program. If Zacharias Bötticher has the > birth place > St. Aegidien Osterode. > Everything's OK. > > Greetings > Markus Yes, you are right. The import still complains about the _LOC tags but the PLAC tag is imported without error. Thanks for the tip. Cheers Harvey ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Announcing the Oxford Dictionaries API! The API offers world-renowned dictionary content that is easy and intuitive to access. Sign up for an account today to start using our lexical data to power your apps and projects. Get started today and enter our developer competition. http://sdm.link/oxford _______________________________________________ Gramps-users mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users https://gramps-project.org |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |