On 30/10/12 23:45, Alan Wood wrote: > I've been playing with a way to record family moves from state to > state. Fact types Immigration and Emigration do no lend themselves to > it. I've tried creating a new fact called Move with a sentence: > "[person] moved< [Date]>< from [Place:plain]> to < > [PlaceDetails:plain]>" and putting the place departed from in the place > field and the place moved to in the place details field. I then share > the fact with the family members that also made the move. > > Has anyone found a more convenient way to handle moves of this sort? The obvious answer to me is to use the residence fact. Firstly, it's a basic fact, exportable to other programs. Secondly, it's there already - no effort on your pat. Thirdly, it appears in the place lists, and all searches. Fourthly, if you don;t know the exact date of the move, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Finally, it does the job! If John Smith resided in place A until 1867, then resided in place B from 1867, it's immediately obvious that he moved! -- Regards Dave

This topic makes me ask when you would use "CENSUS" vs "RESIDENCE"? The reason I ask is because I have been using "RESIDENCE" for the location a person or family lived in the XXXX census. I either started doing that before CENSUS was an event, but RESIDENCE was, or else I didn't realize there was an event named CENSUS. Now that I have a lot of my individuals / families with events of RESIDENCE, I am not going to switch to CENSUS, but I am wondering what the value of using CENSUS rather than RESIDENCE would be. Couldn't they basically be the same thing, with the exception that a census event would likely be in the years of 1870, 1880, 1900, etc (every 10 years) whereas RESIDENCE could be ANY year? I note in the RESIDENCE field, "1880 Census" and then put the location the person or family resided. Brenda

Good question. Ancestry.com automatically creates a Residence fact when you attach a Census source. But you can have visitors recorded in the census at one location but their residence is elsewhere. It is a bit of a leap to conclude residency from the Census, especially if it does not state the household head and the relationship of others to the head. In that sense, Census as a fact is truer to the evidence than Residence. Tom -----Original Message----- From: Brenda Hare Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:33 AM To: davemassie@btinternet.com ; rootsmagic-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [RMagic] Family moves This topic makes me ask when you would use "CENSUS" vs "RESIDENCE"? The reason I ask is because I have been using "RESIDENCE" for the location a person or family lived in the XXXX census. I either started doing that before CENSUS was an event, but RESIDENCE was, or else I didn't realize there was an event named CENSUS. Now that I have a lot of my individuals / families with events of RESIDENCE, I am not going to switch to CENSUS, but I am wondering what the value of using CENSUS rather than RESIDENCE would be. Couldn't they basically be the same thing, with the exception that a census event would likely be in the years of 1870, 1880, 1900, etc (every 10 years) whereas RESIDENCE could be ANY year? I note in the RESIDENCE field, "1880 Census" and then put the location the person or family resided. Brenda =================================== RM list Archives: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/ROOTSMAGIC-USERS/ http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search?path=ROOTSMAGIC-USERS WISH LIST: http://www.rootsmagic.com/forums/ BLOG: http://blog.rootsmagic.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTSMAGIC-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message