Map My Family Tree?

[Texas Gen]

Have you used "Map My Family Tree"
by Legacy?

On the Legacy website there are no screenshots I can find.
http://www.legacyfamilytreestore.com/Pr ... =TechSpecs

The program is supposed to map the important places from an ancestor's life,
as well as trails of residence changes. And it claims that you can label
the map locations to indicate important events, etc., and print out the maps
you specify. I am in the U.S., but the program claims to deal with
worldwide maps.

I would appreciate any comments you have regarding this program or other
similar program.

Warmest Regards,

Donna

[singhals]

Texas Gen wrote:

Have you used "Map My Family Tree"
by Legacy?

On the Legacy website there are no screenshots I can find.
http://www.legacyfamilytreestore.com/Pr ... =TechSpecs

The program is supposed to map the important places from an ancestor's life,
as well as trails of residence changes. And it claims that you can label
the map locations to indicate important events, etc., and print out the maps
you specify. I am in the U.S., but the program claims to deal with
worldwide maps.

I would appreciate any comments you have regarding this program or other
similar program.

Warmest Regards,

Donna

If it's the program I believe it to be (i.e., the one
available at your friendly-local-FHC) I tried it, and ehhhhh.

Overview: as installed with defaults, it will put up a dot
for *each* event (birth, christening, marriage, death, and
burial) for *each* person in your database. It sort of
struck me as a "Beatrice Bayley" thing: it does _exactly_
what it says, but not what you thought it said.

Works best with a single-person database.

You CAN apparently magnify a certain area of the map, but if
your ancestor was born in Yorkshire England, married (1) in
NYC (2) in Houston TX and died in San Francisco California,
you can't magnify it too much or you lose one end or
t'other. If your ancestor was born in Washington DC, married
(1) in Rockville, Montgomery County, MD, and (2) in Fairfax
City, VA, then died in Lanham, Prince George's Co, MD it's
better. If he was born, married, and buried in DC itself,
you'll get overlapping dots and which one the cursor thinks
you're pointing to at any given instant is -- let's call it
variable.

First test:

My test dataset has 247 distinct persons, some of whom lack
precise locations and some of whom have "family" for the
name of the cemetery and "farm" for the place of that
cemetery. The program chose to complain of those, offering
me a chance to standardize them. I figured "buried on their
farm" is a lot more useful to future researchers than the
name of the nearest post-office would be...if only because
the name of that post-office has changed twice since the
burial. It did however, plant a dot labelled "farm" in the
Carribbean to the SE of Bermuda.

It didn't seem to be able to find Chicago, Illinois on a map
either. I'll freely admit my Illinois History gets kinda
sketchy after it quit being a county in Virginia, but AFAIK
there is now and ever has been only ONE Chicago, Illinois.
What's hard to find?

For foreign countries, it complained of non-specificity. It
didn't like "Valenciennes, France" or "Sweden" or "India".
OK, so just for the fun of it, I fixed the India one and it
STILL didn't like it, I'm not sure why.

IMO: if it's a foreign country and nothing else, why not use
the national capital as a place-holder? The connection
would then at least show on the map which is presumably what
the user is looking for. I'd sooner have than than the 6
dots in a 3-mile radius I got on some other place-names.


Second test:

OK, I've spent another three hours or so on it, and I still
have major problems. ONE of them is there appears to be no
consistency in what it accepts and what it rejects.

Using the filter, I can at least get rid of the multiple
dots per person, but that's far from intuitive and some sort
of short phrase on each of those screens about what it does
would be useful. (The screen about Male-Female-Unknown
could certainly benefit from additonal info ... as could the
"legend" one)

Personally, I suspect maps work better when taped to a wall
and stuck with thumbtacks. At least the map doesn't argue
with me that "Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge, Louisiana"
isn't specific enough, or that "Paris, France" is unknown.


SUMMARY:

I'm glad I didn't spend money on this. If you can get to an
FHC to do a test-drive, go for it. Your family may be
enough different, or your locales may be enough different,
or even your data-entry may be enough different, to make
this useful.

Cheryl

[Hugh Watkins]

snipped

First test:

My test dataset has 247 distinct persons, some of whom lack
precise locations and some of whom have "family" for the

snip

For foreign countries, it complained of non-specificity. It
didn't like "Valenciennes, France" or "Sweden" or "India".
OK, so just for the fun of it, I fixed the India one and it
STILL didn't like it, I'm not sure why.

IMO: if it's a foreign country and nothing else, why not use
the national capital as a place-holder? The connection
would then at least show on the map which is presumably what
the user is looking for. I'd sooner have than than the 6
dots in a 3-mile radius I got on some other place-names.


Second test:

OK, I've spent another three hours or so on it, and I still have major
problems. ONE of them is there appears to be no consistency in what it
accepts and what it rejects.

Using the filter, I can at least get rid of the multiple dots per
person, but that's far from intuitive and some sort of short phrase on
each of those screens about what it does would be useful. (The screen
about Male-Female-Unknown could certainly benefit from additonal info
... as could the "legend" one)

Personally, I suspect maps work better when taped to a wall and stuck
with thumbtacks. At least the map doesn't argue with me that "Baton
Rouge, East Baton Rouge, Louisiana" isn't specific enough, or that
"Paris, France" is unknown.


SUMMARY:

I'm glad I didn't spend money on this. If you can get to an FHC to do a
test-drive, go for it. Your family may be enough different, or your
locales may be enough different, or even your data-entry may be enough
different, to make this useful.

Cheryl

sounds like the FTM 2008 concept linking to maps.live.com
which only has a modern databse

the next update should have two location fields
one historical
the other for geocoding

I hope

Hugh W

--
For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and
district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/

http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks

GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

[singhals]

Hugh Watkins wrote:

snipped


First test:

My test dataset has 247 distinct persons, some of whom lack
precise locations and some of whom have "family" for the


snip


For foreign countries, it complained of non-specificity. It
didn't like "Valenciennes, France" or "Sweden" or "India".
OK, so just for the fun of it, I fixed the India one and it
STILL didn't like it, I'm not sure why.

IMO: if it's a foreign country and nothing else, why not use
the national capital as a place-holder? The connection
would then at least show on the map which is presumably what
the user is looking for. I'd sooner have than than the 6
dots in a 3-mile radius I got on some other place-names.


Second test:

OK, I've spent another three hours or so on it, and I still have major
problems. ONE of them is there appears to be no consistency in what
it accepts and what it rejects.

Using the filter, I can at least get rid of the multiple dots per
person, but that's far from intuitive and some sort of short phrase on
each of those screens about what it does would be useful. (The screen
about Male-Female-Unknown could certainly benefit from additonal info
... as could the "legend" one)

Personally, I suspect maps work better when taped to a wall and stuck
with thumbtacks. At least the map doesn't argue with me that "Baton
Rouge, East Baton Rouge, Louisiana" isn't specific enough, or that
"Paris, France" is unknown.


SUMMARY:

I'm glad I didn't spend money on this. If you can get to an FHC to do
a test-drive, go for it. Your family may be enough different, or your
locales may be enough different, or even your data-entry may be enough
different, to make this useful.

Cheryl


sounds like the FTM 2008 concept linking to maps.live.com
which only has a modern databse

the next update should have two location fields
one historical
the other for geocoding

I hope

Hugh W

Ah, yes, geocoding. There was _something_ that implied the
program would do that, but, when I clicked on it, the screen
blinked out, refreshed, and nothing else happened. Nothing
was added to the database, nothing extra showed up in the
balloon ...

Cheryl

[Texas Gen]

Thank you all for your very specific comments on MMFT. I think I'll let
this one pass on by. Theoretically, a program like this would be grand, but
I'll wait until a less buggy one comes along.

Speaking of real maps (map on the wall with thumbtacks--great idea) I put a
topographical map on the bulletin board in my study. Seeing and even
feeling the mountains and rivers helps me to understand how my colonial
ancestors probably made their way West, and why they might have settled
where they did.

And if I really studied the wars like I used to, it would help me understand
troup movements. I used to enjoy reading about the CW and took courses in
the period, but now, knowing specifically the names and tragic circumstances
of my family who died and otherwise suffered deprivations, I just see it as
unbearably sad. I don't have the emotional protection of seeing the War in
the abstract anymore.

But I digress, as usual.

Warmest Regards,

Donna

[singhals]

Texas Gen wrote:

And if I really studied the wars like I used to, it would help me understand
troup movements. I used to enjoy reading about the CW and took courses in
the period, but now, knowing specifically the names and tragic circumstances
of my family who died and otherwise suffered deprivations, I just see it as
unbearably sad. I don't have the emotional protection of seeing the War in
the abstract anymore.

I hear that.

Cheryl