TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-01 > 1041431012


From: Richard Cleaveland <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] GEDCOM export missing county
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 09:23:32 -0500
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20021230122121.0168b4d8@mail.richard.cleaveland.name><3319.68.32.52.232.1041268368.squirrel@mail.whollygenes.com><5.2.0.9.2.20021230105941.01638b48@mail.richard.cleaveland.name><001401c2b018$1a04efb0$6401a8c0@charliexii> <3E0E3DBE.73DFFFAF@sbcglobal.net><5.2.0.9.2.20021230071337.014be4c0@mail.richard.cleaveland.name><5.2.0.9.2.20021230105941.01638b48@mail.richard.cleaveland.name>
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20021231202732.030eea48@pop3.norton.antivirus>


At 08:31 PM 12/31/2002, Lee Hoffman wrote:
>Richard Cleaveland wrote:
>>In this specific case, yes, as an option at least. The alternative is to
>>lie to TMG and say my county is a city, as someone has already suggested.
>
>Is that what you would do if you address a letter to the someone (some
>buisness or even county government office). Or do you just use
>"Arlington" and let the post office figure it out? <g>

Lee, what goes on the front of an envelope has only to do with the postal
address, which in most BUT NOT ALL cases is related to the political
divisions. It is a post office address, and not a declaration of the
governmental entity.

Since the intent of the repository item in GEDCOM is apparently to identify
the address or the repository, if TMG were to be build to match that "need"
it would simply have "address line 1, address line 2... etc." as elements
in the repository record. Note I am not advocating that approach for TMG;
the economies in having the record location fields matching other record
types are evident.

Dick

This thread: