Re: [Gramps-users] Island vs. Country

[Martin S. <mar...@ma...>]

Danuvius <dan...@gm...> writes:

>
> I'm not suggesting that this is untenable... it just seems a bit odd
> to me that there is no specific field for what is, in this fictional
> case, one of two pieces of identifying informations about the location
> of the place.

Most Australians live in a city suburb, with an address such as:

1 Boxer Street,
Chippendale,
NSW  [postal code],
Australia

Chippendale isn't a city, county or parish and therefore doesn't have a
proper gramps tag. It's a suburb of Sydney, although in the address
above it is listed as a town or city would be. For the postal service
that's fine, but for a genealogy database it's not so good, because we
probably want to be reminded that it is a part of Sydney. I would like
it to list under Sydney in the places view, as well as in its own proper
column.

I agree with Gerald, however, that this doesn't matter too much. What
matters more is how the fields provided by Gramps are ordered, and
tagged, in reports.

To my mind, if Gramps fails here, it is for being too specific in the
tags it provides. The only reasonable way I can see to address that
would be to provide a greater level of user configuration, of a kind
that Gramps doesn't possess. Five address levels, provide your own field
tag. My impression, however, is that neither users nor developers would
favour such an approach.

--
Martin