Hi Sebastian,
this is not a bug - it’s intentional. I never liked things like “München, München, Bayern, Deutschland”. If you hover with your mouse over the place name (in your case, “9”), it will show a preview with the full place hierarchy.
Gramps gives you a lot of freedom to do things the way you like it, so in many cases there is no right or wrong, but in my personal opinion it doesn’t make much sense to give a building the place name “9”. Yes, if a report or user interface shows that as “9, Neue Straße, …” etc., that can work, but the underlying data still has “9” as the place name, plus links to a place hierarchy.
Plus, there is of course the subtlety that addresses change over time.
How I personally do it is to give a readable name to houses - many times just the current street address (in your case “Neue Straße 9”). If you include street names in the hierarchy, that can sometimes lead to duplication - but I still find it useful, precisely because the address can change, and I sometimes use the old street name for a house’s place title.
Ciao, David
A building has a house number. This building is in a street. And in Gramps Desktop there are place types for number and for street.
If the name or the number of a building has changed over time you can define date ranges for each name and Gramps Desktop will calculate the right street name and number for you depending on the date of the event.
So if the same building had three numbers and the street had five names over the time I create one place with type number and one place type street add the numbers/names and date ranges and Gramps do the rest for me.
And and Gramps preferences place format editor there is a separate field how to handle streets and numbers.
Why should I give up this feature?
Sebastian
First of all, I didn’t ask you to give up anything. I shared my opinion, which you are free to ignore. Please accept that.
Some more of that opinion: I think “Number” should never have been added as a place type in Gramps. A number is not a place, it’s metadata about a place. Just like we don’t have “ZIP code” as a place type. In an ideal world, a place would have a time-dependent address data structure, just like it has time-dependent names and a time-dependent hierarchy. Using the hierarchy plus a custom place type for this purpose is a workaround (in my opinion), which has pros and cons.
For instance, as I’m sure you know, in Germany, most cities/villages switched from building numbers to street numbers in the 19th century. Yes, you can model that making the building inherit from the village and then inherit from the street, while change the place number (number) at the same time, but I don’t find that intuitive at all.
Displaying a street name for a place of type “number” is something we can consider, feel free to open a feature request. But it’s very different from displaying the full place hierarchy.
I tend to agree with Dave and I never use the type Number
If I have 4 properties in the same Street
No 1 Could be Type Domestic Dwelling
No 2 Could be Type Shop
No 3 Could be Type Tavern
No 4 Could be Type Church
Whilst if I hand write an address
I would write 3, Smith St., Blackpool, Lancashire
In Gramps
I would write Smith St., 3, Blackpool, Lancashire
with Smith St., being of type Street/Road, Blackpool Type Town,
Lancashire Type Ancient County
I find this looks better in the Place Tree View but not so good in some
circumstances in Place View.
Working by Street name also helps when adding new places all the Smiths
get sorted adjacent so a property can easily be enclosed by the street
if it already exists.
I think different countries and different era’s require different
schemes all are correct just not the same and some work better than
others in GRAMPS
phil
Thanks for your opinions.
I think there are multiple ways to solve problems in Gramps (like in any other software).
My way is to use the software’s features as they are provided and described in the Wiki. https://gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php/De:Gramps_5.0_Wiki_Handbuch_-_Einstellungen#Orte
I want to use a street and a number to exactly show which persons lived together.
So I was happy to find this function in Gramps Desktop.
My only intention for this thread was to show “…there is something that doesn’t work like in Gramps Desktop.”. Maybe it’s a bug or something.
And I thought the goal is to get Gramps Desktop and Gramps Web to work like one application. But if it’s not the intention of others … it’s okay.
Sebastian
Yes. Number was intended to be a sub-division of Street. In hindsight it would have been better to call it Building.
In Japan, it is common to group buildings by block instead of street. They use numbers to identify both block and building.
I was hoping that Addresses would some day be more tightly integrated with Places.
So that you might be able to record one-offs as Addresses (referencing a Place object base at the Locality, City, or County/State level field) instead of cluttering up the Place list. And possibly with a KML for property lines instead of a GPS coordinate pair.
Address Editor dialog from Gramps for desktops:
