Reevaluate need for having places be standardized form when editing?
I love the possibility to edit indexed church records!
But. Editing places in records is sometimes stopped by the rule that it must be a standardized place. And for f.ex. place of residence it can be a detailed place not listed in standardized places, making editing impossible.
F.ex. in this record (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6833-WLFF) the Mother's Residence is indexed as "Maridalen 316". Which is almost, but not quite, correct. The correct content is "Maridalsv 316".
But when trying to correct this, I am stopped by a message "You must select a standardized place". "Maridalsv 316" from the church record is a partly abbreviated street address (Maridalsveien 316 in Oslo, Norway), which is not possible to choose in the standard place dropdown.
Is there a way around this?
The best I can think of is to put the corrected street address (or other place detail) in the correction's note field.
It appears that the dual-field setup that applies to placenames in Tree (i.e. a display value that can be more detailed than the associated standardized value) has not been applied to indexes. I think this makes sense: it's a placename field, not an address field, so its contents should be a place, not a street address. Having a separate display value doesn't really work when the purpose is to match location search terms or filters.
Yes, having the index say "Oslo, Norway" loses information compared to "Maridalsveien 316, Oslo, Norway", but you have to keep in mind that it's an index, not a transcription. An index is just a finding aid.0