I have read RM’s document for moving data from TMG to RM. I have also searched the forum and I am maybe more confused.
Census records - since RM handles witness differently than TMG, I am concerned about my census records. In TMG I have head of household as principle, all other’s are witnesses (if this was incorrect, it was because I never checked “sentences” or ran a “narrative” in TMG. Will RM import the HoH as a individual/person fact type and list the other family members that share the event, or is this something to clean up in TMG before or RM after? Will other witnesses on other events come across (FamilyTreeMaker let me know that witness would not be imported into their program.)
I am really concerned about what I don’t know that could affect a successful import. Fortunately I am an extreme lumper, so I don’t think that sources will be an issue on import, but after all the reading I have done, I am not sure I would even catch import errors!
Thank you. I have read both of those through a couple of times, thus my anxiety about “known issues” in whether particular tags/facts will be imported in some form or another, or lost! I will be checking to make sure my project has “custom” source categories, see if I have an History group tags which won’t be imported into RM, and see if I have anything in the “repository Name-Other” field. Hopefully I built my sources in TMG well enough that they play nicely with RM.
You should check the import to see if there is anything that you can identify as questions and then research how to change TMG to correct the import. Rinse and repeat as required.
Interesting. The way I did census records in TMG was to have head of household as principal 1 and spouse as principal 2 and others as witnesses.
These imported into RM as a Family type census fact with witnesses as expected.
This was true to the original entry method ion TMG.
Since you aren’t using principal 2 for census records in TMG, I’d guess your records will import as personal census records with witnesses which is the entry method I prefer in RM.
I wrote a utility to convert facts from one type to another, so if there is a problem, the util will fix it. https://richardotter.github.io
see “ConvertFact” utility.
Richard, thank you for your reply. I think the good thing about entering only the Head-of-Household as the principal in TMG allowed all others, including the wife to have the witness sentence (in TMG) as “in the household of” the principal. However the benefit of doing it your way (P1 HoH and P2 spouse would have let the sentence read “(name) in the household of (P1 name) and (P2)” which would have been more informative in a narrative.
So it appears all of the witnesses on TMG census tags came across into RM as a “shared” event, but with no sentence visible in the person view. I verified that RM (and TMG) had a sentence for census witnesses (and “shared” P2), but in RM for some reason in the person view, it was blank. I edited the global witness and P2 sentence in RM (using the painter’s palette icon on the upper right) and now they have a sentence, but when I hit customize (the sentence) in the person view, only the field for the primary has a sentence structure to edit. I closed and reopened RootsMagic, but the P2 customize sentence structure is blank, even though it correctly displays the P2 census sentence for that person. I usually (always?) customize sentences on a global level, so the blank customization on the person level isn’t a problem in the long run.
I had to go back and edit the sentence for shared people since family members aren’t really witnesses in RootsMagic (per RM help documentation) but are instead P2 “shared.” This sentence structure: [ThisPerson] appeared in the household of [person] on the census< [Date]>< [PlaceDetails]>< [Place]>, along with [OtherPersons], gets me the P2 individuals listed correctly in the P1 household, and lists all others, which is long, but my preference for mentally picturing a census fact for an individual. My ideal sentence would have been “(name) in the household of (relationship like father) (P1) with (mother) (name), along with (all other witnesses)”, but I don’t know if a sentence can calculate the relationship.
Thank you for the utility link. Since census’ facts appear to be “shared” in RM, I think I will leave it.
