# How to encode 2 possible dates for an event? **URL:** \ **Category:** Help\ **Created:** [March 5, 2024, 9:24am UTC](https://gramps.discourse.group/t/how-to-encode-2-possible-dates-for-an-event/5054 "2024-03-05T09:24:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![oliber](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/gramps.discourse.group/oliber/32/1696_2.png) [@oliber](https://gramps.discourse.group/u/oliber)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2024, 9:24am UTC](https://gramps.discourse.group/t/how-to-encode-2-possible-dates-for-an-event/5054/1 "2024-03-05T09:24:51Z")
Hi! In the very specific case of one of my ancestors, for whom I only have a fragment of his birth register, I have 2 possible dates for his birth date: [https://gw.geneanet.org/oliber?p=philippe+vaast&n=berten](https://gw.geneanet.org/oliber?p=philippe+vaast&n=berten) Geneweb has a ‘OR’ modifier but Gramps doesn’t… What’s the best way to encode that into Gramps? ---
**Author:** ![pgerlier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/41988e/32.png) [@pgerlier](https://gramps.discourse.group/u/pgerlier)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2024, 9:37am UTC](https://gramps.discourse.group/t/how-to-encode-2-possible-dates-for-an-event/5054/2 "2024-03-05T09:37:01Z")
However odd this may be, I record two events in this case. Since this is “anomalous”, it draws my attention for further research. If possible dates are relatively close to each other, I use an “imprecise date” _between yyyy-mm-dd and yyyy-mm-dd_. Be aware there is no “best” way to encode this. Use whatever fits your mind and proves handy for you. **EDIT** Forgot to mention that all my records receive a tag to assess remaining work to do on them. - brand new records are _new_ with red colour - in-progress ones are _partial_ with colour turned green - complete and reliable ones have no tag, thus they display black - “dead-end” records are _no follow-up_ with colour gray - unprovable records (because of law on publicly available data, …) are _restricted_ with colour brown - records which incur missing data because of destruction (war, flood, fire, …) are tagged _lapse_ with colour orange Therefore, “anomalous” double event will also be tagged _new_ or _partial_. Perhaps I should add a _doubt_ tag to emphasise the context. ---
**Author:** ![emyoulation](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/gramps.discourse.group/emyoulation/32/67_2.png) [@emyoulation](https://gramps.discourse.group/u/emyoulation)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2024, 2:23pm UTC](https://gramps.discourse.group/t/how-to-encode-2-possible-dates-for-an-event/5054/3 "2024-03-05T14:23:24Z")
GEDCOMv7 has additional feature for disproven data. I do not see similar expansion for an “or” Although well-intentioned, it seems to me that they are making a mistep and adding clutter to the data structure. The [QUAY](https://gedcom.io/specifications/FamilySearchGEDCOMv7.html#QUAY) tag already touched on assessing confidence in supporting data. It seems that an expansion into a negative QUAY scale would be more appropriate. Where -3 would indicate a `NO` status. And competing unique events, each at QUAY level 1 (questionable reliability), could indicate an ‘OR’ status at equal probability. > #### `NO` (Did not happen) [`g7:NO`](https://gedcom.io/specifications/FamilySearchGEDCOMv7.html#NO) > > An enumerated value from set [`g7:enumset-EVEN`](https://gedcom.io/specifications/FamilySearchGEDCOMv7.html#enumset-EVEN) identifying an event type which did not occur to the superstructure’s subject. A specific payload `NO XYZ` should only appear where `XYZ` would be legal. > > See [`NON_EVENT_STRUCTURE`](https://gedcom.io/specifications/FamilySearchGEDCOMv7.html#NON_EVENT_STRUCTURE) for more details. * * * ![Screenshot_20240305_080250_Firefox](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/gramps/original/2X/3/3d6dc436bf9e24023d870f3640fe1b50f299c50f.jpeg) > ### [`g7:enumset-QUAY`](https://gedcom.io/specifications/FamilySearchGEDCOMv7.html#enumset-QUAY) > > | Value | Meaning | > | --- | --- | > | `0` | Unreliable evidence or estimated data | > | `1` | Questionable reliability of evidence (interviews, census, oral genealogies, or potential for bias, such as an autobiography) | > | `2` | Secondary evidence, data officially recorded sometime after the event | > | `3` | Direct and primary evidence used, or by dominance of the evidence | > > Although the values look like integers, they do not have numeric meaning. > > The structures for representing the strength of and confidence in various claims are known to be inadequate and are likely to change in a future version of this specification. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/gramps/original/1X/2ac1e712b7adf612e31ca08a55419f4cf37c0158.png) [@system](https://gramps.discourse.group/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2024, 2:24pm UTC](https://gramps.discourse.group/t/how-to-encode-2-possible-dates-for-an-event/5054/4 "2024-04-04T14:24:18Z")
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.