Confusion on Standard Address drop downs, added to Details.
When I try to add an address to the Event Residence, Lets say ...
123 Maple street, New York, New York, USA
It does not find the address but wants to put in a standard address like New York New Nork, USA. Bottom line is t hat it does not seem to take an actual address as standard? Is t hat true?
Where am I suppose to put and actual address?
I have been putting in the actual address in Place of Residence, and ignoring the "Standard Address"
Thanks.
Answers
-
@ColinM0288 The address you input is freeform and valid if sourced. The places database/standard location will likely never contain all those addresses/streets but yes may contain the town/city (parent place). Thus the address you entered can be perfectly valid but not referenced in the places database. It would be nice if the database could handle a reference/map pin (lat./long.) For each and every place (and maybe that is what FamilySearch wants ... eventually) - but then the map would be more full of indistinguishable pins (especially for older place names that might not be listed on the modern mapping solution).
I agree there is some confusion about what FamilySearch would prefer users to do. But until more direction is given I would say enter your street address as you have done in the example and standardize/reference the parent place as the Standard Place (which also appears to have been done in this example). You don't need to change either place and it shouldn't be confusing. The standard place contains (or should contain) the addressed place.
The confusion is only continued by someone else changing what you have entered as an entirely valid place - to conform to their understanding of how places should be entered. I don't know anyway around that. Attaching Reason this information is correct note may help prevent changes but is just extra effort/precaution - and might be changed anyway by someone not paying attention.
Incidentally when adding a new place to FamilySearch Places database - there are only limited types of places you can add currently:
Street is not an option - so you really shouldn't worry about it 'til the database for the place gets more filled out and it becomes an option (that's my guess as to why streets/addresses aren't currently an option).
One reason I can think of TO document streets/roads are projects for historical roads (example: https://piedmonttrails.com/the-great-wagon-road-project/). Whether FamilySearch goes into such detail -incorporating historic maps in the future - or partners with other entities to include such only in wiki or elsewhere - the information is beneficial.
1 -
Thanks.
1 -
The Places database doesn't -- and shouldn't! -- contain street addresses. That'd go well beyond "unwieldy" into "impossible to navigate or maintain". (Especially given how often they've renumbered the houses in some of the places my family is from.)
However, this doesn't mean that you can't -- or shouldn't -- use street addresses in Family Tree conclusions. It's one of the beauties of FamilySearch's dual-entry system that I can enter my grandmother's residence as "Madách liget 4, Balassagyarmat, Nógrád, Hungary", choose the top (reddish) text to keep what I've typed, and have it associated with the database entry for the town ("Balassagyarmat, Nógrád, Hungary"). Yes, this will put the map pin in the middle of the street in front of the town hall, about half a mile away from where she lived, but this is not a problem: it's not like I expect a genealogy website to double as a GPS device or mapping service. It's enough that I've captured the address information in a place where it's easy to see and reference at need.
4 -
By the way genthusiast Im not sure I have seen that menu you have posted?
0 -
That menu is from the Places database Suggest A New Place on mobile device.
0 -
@ColinM0288 in the web-based version https://www.familysearch.org/research/places/ Suggest a new place:
1 -
I agree that cemeteries and hospitals and so on are a level of detail that doesn't really need to be in the database, but I also think that that ship sailed long ago.
1 -
... However it's necessary to stop the database getting utterly unwieldy.
@davidnewton2 If you mean that it could cause further confusion without an additional layer/structure - I agree. As mentioned above - there is already enough confusion about where/how to put current larger parent places. To input a street may be confusing enough that others would remove it in an effort to 'standardize' - but really shouldn't be as it is allowed freeform entry.
Hopefully FamilySearch can give an idea and to any future plans of additional layer/structure - but if kept in current form there really should be some instruction about what to do with streets. The current database structure allows places to be contained within parent places. So theoretically all streets could be entered at a different sub-layer - it just isn't visible how FamilySearch is handling that currently. I kind of suspect they are not entering them on another layer - just allowing freeform entry. Thus it would be up to individual users to keep such intact. If they are just now introducing some area/kml files I would not expect streets to be available anytime soon.
0 -
The difference between a street address which I agree is not needed in the database and a church or cemetery which are needed, is that a street address will have a relatively few number of people ever associated with it while a church or cemetery can have a huge number.
Take for example Stord Church in Norway. Records start about 1725. Estimate 150 births per year, 50 marriages, 150 deaths through about 1930 which is what is available in the scanned registers. That is (150+50+150) *205 or 71,750 as a very low estimate of events that can use that place name.
I continue to maintain that there is no confusion about how we are to enter place names because the system is so elegantly designed and easy to get used to if one just forgets 100 years of genealogical conditioning to only put in minimal information and doesn't get confused by the word "standardize."
@ColinM0288 , you are entering place names correctly. Enter the full address and link it to the shorter "standard" name as you are doing. Family Tree is designed to allow just as much information as we need for precision and accuracy. This date and place name are correctly entered in Family Tree and correctly standardized:
To "standardize" just means to link the place name you want or need to enter to an appropriate simpler version that will give a mark on the map that is close enough to be useful.
2 -
Well...... Thank you all for your comments.
There is a lot to digest and unpack.
One thing that was said was I think if I choose to put in a # street address, and I click on the red, text if there also happens to be an proper city / country etc. under it then it will take my # custom address but also put a pin on map of the city they have lived in. If that is true. I did not do this generally. I didn't really understand that. I think that is right based on your comments.
That is a good tip. If I read it correctly.
I do seem to generate some conversations ? Inquiring minds want to know I suppose.
Thanks again.
0 -
@ColinM0288, yes, you're on the right track in your screenshot, but you might want to keep typing at least as far as "Ontario", because if you click that reddish text at the top, it really does "keep what you typed" -- exactly, letter for letter.
3 -
There is no need to put the street address anywhere other than where they belong which is right in front of the city name. That is where one always expects to see them and Family Tree is specifically designed to have them there. They are easy to put it there and the program works great when one does so.
It is important to type out the entire place name so it looks nice, as Julia mentioned, and is very important to always proof-read the linked standard to make sure you have chosen the right one. Usually the default that appears on the second line of the drop down menu will be correct, but not always.
If you are interested in understanding all the fine details of this great feature of Family Tree, you might want to view my presentation at: https://youtu.be/qLa5PC4RPPk
1 -
I don't use the street address either, for the same reasons others have mentioned. The address I lived at - same house from birth to age 12 years - changed 4 times.
0 -
Not needing to or wanting to is, of course, perfectly fine. Our families all need different types of documentation. I also don't use street addresses all that much but there are specific situations where it can be very helpful to keep families straight. I recently worked on untangling the families of two different Oskar Hansens of Oslo each of whom were married to Maria Olsen. Putting in where each child was born as Street Address, Kristiania, Norway will help prevent them from getting incorrectly merged again better than just entering Kristiania, Norway.
But I feel that the illustration that Family Tree is designed to have free-form place names entered and linked to a standard is most clearly shown by demonstrating that adding additional information such as street addresses is perfectly legal, acceptable, and intended.
It is also an easier discussion to hold than where I really run into the situation that just using the standard is not sufficient or appropriate.
Here is that other discussion: The county of Sogn og Fjordane, Norway currently has 1859 children in the Places database. Of these, 1611 are direct children. That county has only 26 municipalities. These municipalities should be the only direct children of the county. This means that 1585 places in the county are incorrect in the database because they are direct children of the county instead of being under a municipality as they should be.
Glancing over a map, each municipality in Sogn og Fjordane probably averages about 75 place names that should be in the database. This means that there probably should be around 2000 places in the database. Also, all the places currently only have one time period. I haven't looked into the history of this county, but if it is similar to the neighboring county of Hordaland, each place should have 3 or 4 historical periods. That would bring it to a total of at least 6000 places.
This means there are 274 standard place names in the database than might be correct and over 5726 places that are either incorrect or missing from the database. If someone were to persist in the common misunderstanding that only "standards" can be used and went though Family Tree "correcting" every place in Sogn og Fjordane to get that map pin, the damage would be severe, particularly because place names are often used in more than one municipality.
For example, there is one entry for Berg, Sogn og Fjordane, Norway while there are twelve municipalities that each have a place named Berg in them. The Berg in the database is Berg, Leikanger, Sogn og Fjordane. The other 11 are missing. "Standardizing" everyone living in Berg and requiring use of the database entry means that 92% of the time the place would be completely wrong on the map.
Yes, I could request 6000 places be added or improved for this rather small and rather unimportant place in the world and hope that in ten to fifteen years they would all be there. In the meantime, this ability to enter the correct place name and link to the equivalent incorrectly named place with the right latitude and longitude or to its parent place is a really important feature of Family Tree that people need to understand properly.
2 -
@Gordon Collett if you did enter the ~6000 place names that would be awesome! But then everyone using a child place would need to know which municipality their place is in rather than use the freeform entry. My goal would be to fill out the database - but then people need to carefully select the standard OR if possible FamilySearch could automate/ default to the historical period of Source entry (require source entry if possible - but automation doesn't seem to always work well...). Anyway just a couple thoughts...
0 -
Not me entering them, the Places database people getting them in the database in order to fill out the database.
Of course everyone using a child place needs to know the correct municipality! If they don't they are really going to make a mess in Family Tree and they will never find correct sources because sources are grouped by municipality. Currently the situation in Sogn og Fjordane is kind of equivalent to what the situation would be if the Places database only had Centerville, United States. If you were looking for a birth record in Centerville, Unitied States, you better know that your person was born in Centerville, Alabama, not Centerville, Washington and you better enter it correctly in Family Tree.
1 -
@Gordon Collett when I say "[you] enter them ... " I meant you submit them - yes the places team accepts/certifies (I commonly shorten what might be drawn out more explicitly - after all a submission is entered ...). Anyway I'd much rather have someone knowing the area submit places to get them accepted/certified correctly in the database rather than leave them for freeform entry because they are "rather small and rather unimportant place(s) in the world". Isn't that the point - to remember them - to value even their minuscule record of existence?
Places similar to people have relationships to parent and children places - so it's important to enter/select the correct place relationship.
0 -
So much to digest. Thank you all for your comments. You all have done so much more work, and it seems many of you on other family's. I have enough problems on my own.
The reason I personally like to put street addresses in is because my little family history is a bit confusing, so it helps sort out which records are mine as oppose to those that are unrelated.
My family consists of Smiths and Jones. And if your not English speaking, you should know that those are pretty much the most common names in the English tribe. Also in one case one family member went from Smith and then married someone with the last name of Smith. (She was not working with us at all. ) Some records might say Mary Smith, well there are a lot of them in UK. But if the only other fact is a Mary Smith who lived at 123 Sesame street, and I know my relative lived there, well I'm pretty sure that's a connection. I try to be very carful making connections, An address is a pretty strong one.
As far as having lived in 4 places, and these are my uneducated thoughts. Ok so you lived in 4 places. To me one could list them all. The DB allows for that, and that is part of your families history. It might help in searching, but maybe I'm wrong here? I know there are other views.
The only other problem is that, it seems that the names of places change, it seems that at times the old records don't align with places today, boroughs', counties parishes, stuff like that. We do our best.
I suppose as one person has said, Until the maintainers tell us specifically something different there is no real wrong or right.
Regards to all.
0
