"Of course you can do whatever you want to do."
very true.
Also, thanks for work around for using "Places" tool. Never have explored that tool after many years tinkering with FTM. Others, like us, dropping in here (FTM threads) for first time might also see value in that option.
Another consideration for those sharing to LDS at some point:
As of this date, cemetery names added at front of location sequence are flagged by LDS "Data Problems" tool. Their flags highlight, but don't prevent entry of content of burial fact field with cemetery names added at front. Right or wrong...another consideration. Our guess, likely a "problem" for their massive legacy system of church member data of some sort... hard to say.
If we could rewrite their (LDS) rules, we'ld go with the 2010 National Gen suggestions you've so kindly shared via blog jpeg attachment; sure does "read" better with cemetery name up front. But...we are still cognizant that standardization of genealogy data doesn't seem to be a settled matter, per se...so trudge along at our pace and needs....and tweak our content based on what we enjoy and where, or to who, we are sharing .
In regards to our own data in FTM we've come to the assumption that gen software life span "years" in general, are "numbered". Anything that we can do to prepare for an eventual easy migration or jump to another platform is a safe tack for us; that includes for us:
- Vitals Standardization
- Media workflow outside of FTM
- Tasks managed outside of FTM
cheers!
very true.
Also, thanks for work around for using "Places" tool. Never have explored that tool after many years tinkering with FTM. Others, like us, dropping in here (FTM threads) for first time might also see value in that option.
Another consideration for those sharing to LDS at some point:
As of this date, cemetery names added at front of location sequence are flagged by LDS "Data Problems" tool. Their flags highlight, but don't prevent entry of content of burial fact field with cemetery names added at front. Right or wrong...another consideration. Our guess, likely a "problem" for their massive legacy system of church member data of some sort... hard to say.
If we could rewrite their (LDS) rules, we'ld go with the 2010 National Gen suggestions you've so kindly shared via blog jpeg attachment; sure does "read" better with cemetery name up front. But...we are still cognizant that standardization of genealogy data doesn't seem to be a settled matter, per se...so trudge along at our pace and needs....and tweak our content based on what we enjoy and where, or to who, we are sharing .
In regards to our own data in FTM we've come to the assumption that gen software life span "years" in general, are "numbered". Anything that we can do to prepare for an eventual easy migration or jump to another platform is a safe tack for us; that includes for us:
- Vitals Standardization
- Media workflow outside of FTM
- Tasks managed outside of FTM
cheers!