Question - Using Vesta Shared Places vs webtrees "Geographic data" about vesta_shared_places HOT 3 CLOSED

The available data fixes do not support the last requirement (3.). I don't really recommend (any longer) to use the option 'Additionally link shared places via name' - Why don't you want the _LOC XRefs?

If this is a one-time operation, I guess you could run the data fix ("Create all missing shared places, and add missing XREFs") and manually merge the created top-level _LOC records from the resulting GEDCOM file into the original GEDCOM file. Or I could create another data fix, but the choice of available fixes may already be too confusing as it is.

from vesta_shared_places.

I was trying to be as GEDCOM compliant as I could so the _LOC tags would violate that.

However... I'm open to the data fix you recommend.
YES the current list of fixes is rather confusing as they are, so don't add more.

Question - Will the recommended fix add Location_Records only if their is a corresponding PLAC tag -or- will it add all records found in the "webtrees Geographic Data". I.E. does the GEDCOM FACT.PLAC tag drive the addition of shared places or does the *.csv installed Geographic Data drive the process?

from vesta_shared_places.

Will the recommended fix add Location_Records only if their is a corresponding PLAC tag

Yes (hopefully). The additional .csv-based data is only used to enhance existing places.

I was trying to be as GEDCOM compliant as I could so the _LOC tags would violate that.

I wouldn't worry too much about that, you'll have non-standard 0 _LOC records anyway. Any application that is able to handle (or at least ignore) those should be able to deal with the 2 _LOC XRefs as well.

from vesta_shared_places.