Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Concerns? Let us know by posting here.

Moderators: Phaseolus, Fons, avij, dserrano5

User avatar
Dioniz
Euro-Master in Training
Euro-Master in Training
Posts: 777
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:07 pm
Location: Slovenia

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Post by Dioniz » Sat Jun 30, 2018 5:11 am

Please merge entry " :flag-si: Uterga (1000)" in :flag-si: Unknown (ID 30) from 22.5.2011 with (actually you'll have to make a new profile) :flag-es: Uterga (province Navarra - unless there is another place with the same name?). It surely is Spain nevertheless.
My profile & EBTST & Hit-dots map
Hits: 592x :flag-si:, 220x :flag-at:, 48x :flag-de:, 21x :flag-it:, 9x :flag-nl:, 7x :flag-be:, 5x :flag-sk:, 3x :flag-fi:, 2x :flag-fr:, 1x :flag-ee:, 1x :flag-gr:, 1x :flag-pt:, 1x :flag-es:, 1x :flag-hr:, 1x ME, 1x :flag-at: :flag-at:, 1x :flag-be: :flag-be:, 1x :flag-fr: :flag-de:, 1x :flag-be: :flag-at:
Flightdiary & Where's George?

User avatar
Burdie
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:59 pm
Location: Spain
Contact:

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Post by Burdie » Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:07 pm

Dioniz wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 5:11 am
Please merge entry " :flag-si: Uterga (1000)" in :flag-si: Unknown (ID 30) from 22.5.2011 with (actually you'll have to make a new profile) :flag-es: Uterga (province Navarra - unless there is another place with the same name?). It surely is Spain nevertheless.
Done, Thanks for spotting it
Personal statistics from: NIGMM / EBTST 247 Hits with 2 triple :flag-es: 15 :flag-eu: 381
list of (known by me) latest "codes_country.txt" files Blog

User avatar
lmviterbo
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 4641
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Contact:

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Post by lmviterbo » Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:09 pm

Dioniz wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 5:11 am
:flag-es: Uterga (province Navarra - unless there is another place with the same name?). It surely is Spain nevertheless.
Well, in fact I can't be that sure.¹

The Albanian name for the Montenegrin small village Utrg is Utërga (there is an Albanian name for places in Montenegro with a significant Albanian population).

The only user who registered a note in this town is :flag-si: KinkyOne. Unfortunately they chose not to share their maps, so I can't tell easily if they visited any other place in Navarra or Montenegro.²

Also, postal codes in either Spain or Montenegro are 5 digits long, not 4. Furthermore, postal codes in Slovenia are in fact 4 digits, and 1000 is a valid postal code in KinkyOne's default town, Ljubljana (1000 Ljubljana on Google Maps).

Sorry, Burdie, unless there's very good reason for the merge (and I'm missing something), I will undo it later today. The Uterga, Navarra profile will be still valid, of course, and maybe in the future someone tracks notes there, so thanks for creating it anyway.³


EDIT:
¹ in fact there is very good reason to believe this Uterga is the Navarra one, so Burdie did in fact the right thing, as I explain below.
² In spite of KinkyOne not showing their maps, I can tell from the city profiles that they never visited Montenegro but were in fact in Navarra, where they registered 32 notes (4 in Pamplona, 4 in Estella / Lizarra, 1 in Viana, and so on).
³ After finding that KinkyOne was in Navarra, my doubts are no longer valid, so I will leave it exactly how Burdie did it. Thanks, Dioniz and Burdie. If you have read this before the edit, sorry for the mess. If you have read it after the edit, double sorry for the double mess. :roll:

User avatar
Dioniz
Euro-Master in Training
Euro-Master in Training
Posts: 777
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:07 pm
Location: Slovenia

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Post by Dioniz » Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:20 pm

Thanks for merging!

Yes, my conclusions were made after I checked KinkyOne's profile. He had an active hit from 27.5.2011 in :flag-es: Belorado, also with his home postcode 1000 and a lot of entries in neighbouring territory. Nevertheless, research you've done is laudable. ;-)
My profile & EBTST & Hit-dots map
Hits: 592x :flag-si:, 220x :flag-at:, 48x :flag-de:, 21x :flag-it:, 9x :flag-nl:, 7x :flag-be:, 5x :flag-sk:, 3x :flag-fi:, 2x :flag-fr:, 1x :flag-ee:, 1x :flag-gr:, 1x :flag-pt:, 1x :flag-es:, 1x :flag-hr:, 1x ME, 1x :flag-at: :flag-at:, 1x :flag-be: :flag-be:, 1x :flag-fr: :flag-de:, 1x :flag-be: :flag-at:
Flightdiary & Where's George?

User avatar
Evert
Euro-Master in Training
Euro-Master in Training
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2002 3:29 pm
Location: Helsinki

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Post by Evert » Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:40 pm

Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan doesn't appear on the map if written in cyrillic alphabet

User avatar
Burdie
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:59 pm
Location: Spain
Contact:

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Post by Burdie » Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:13 pm

Evert wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:40 pm
Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan doesn't appear on the map if written in cyrillic alphabet
The dot is there, but please give us at least 48 hours (as stated in the first post) the time to correct these things
Personal statistics from: NIGMM / EBTST 247 Hits with 2 triple :flag-es: 15 :flag-eu: 381
list of (known by me) latest "codes_country.txt" files Blog

User avatar
lmviterbo
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 4641
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Contact:

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Post by lmviterbo » Sun Jul 01, 2018 12:03 am

I can't see the dot. Both Bishkek 720001 and Бишкек 720001 miss geocoords at the moment, and I believe that is why the system doesn't calculate the average of coordinates as usual.

If I got it right, Kyrgyzstan's postal code system works like this (from youbianku's article):
720= regional centre or major town
001= main office [post office, I guess]
On the official Kyrgyzs Post page (in Kyrgyzs and Russian), you can search for "Kyrgyzs 01", and it returns the office address and the streets with that postal code (that is, served by that office).

The post office address is "ул. Киевская, 114". The first line of the streets served by that office is:
ул. Чуй — even numbers 128-180 + odd numbers 207-263
This in fact includes the money exchange at ул. Чуй 136 where that note was obtained.

I guess that the geocoordinates for postal code numbers in Kyrgyzstan can be simply derived from the post office address. In this case, they would be 42.8747, 74.5971. Does anyone disagree or have a better understanding of this all?

User avatar
Burdie
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:59 pm
Location: Spain
Contact:

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Post by Burdie » Sun Jul 01, 2018 12:33 am

lmviterbo wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 12:03 am
I can't see the dot. Both Bishkek 720001 and Бишкек 720001 miss geocoords at the moment, and I believe that is why the system doesn't calculate the average of coordinates as usual.

If I got it right, Kyrgyzstan's postal code system works like this (from youbianku's article):
720= regional centre or major town
001= main office [post office, I guess]
On the official Kyrgyzs Post page (in Kyrgyzs and Russian), you can search for "Kyrgyzs 01", and it returns the office address and the streets with that postal code (that is, served by that office).

The post office address is "ул. Киевская, 114". The first line of the streets served by that office is:
ул. Чуй — even numbers 128-180 + odd numbers 207-263
This in fact includes the money exchange at ул. Чуй 136 where that note was obtained.

I guess that the geocoordinates for postal code numbers in Kyrgyzstan can be simply derived from the post office address. In this case, they would be 42.8747, 74.5971. Does anyone disagree or have a better understanding of this all?

Sorry for this. My source is Google Map. When I searched for Бишкек (720001) that brought me to Bishkek without Postcode. My interpretation was that it couldn´t find the Postcode but it gave me a name. That is the reason that I did not enter any coordinates in and only merge it to Bishkek / Бишкек Profile 10927, that profile had two coordinates.
In general we can´t read the remarks by the notes, that belongs to the postcodes, so I think leave it like it is
Personal statistics from: NIGMM / EBTST 247 Hits with 2 triple :flag-es: 15 :flag-eu: 381
list of (known by me) latest "codes_country.txt" files Blog

User avatar
lmviterbo
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 4641
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Contact:

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Post by lmviterbo » Sun Jul 01, 2018 12:41 am

Burdie wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 12:33 am
In general we can´t read the remarks by the notes, that belongs to the postcodes, so I think leave it like it is
If we leave it like this, it will remain without a dot.

If we know where Bishkek 720001 is, regardless of what the note comments say, there is no reason to leave it unmapped (that is, without coordinates). What I said before is that I believe I have found where Bishkek 720001 is (the note comment wasn't needed to find it, and it just seems to corroborate my finding), and was asking if anyone thinks that I am not correct.

User avatar
Burdie
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:59 pm
Location: Spain
Contact:

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Post by Burdie » Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:24 am

lmviterbo wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 12:41 am
Burdie wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 12:33 am
In general we can´t read the remarks by the notes, that belongs to the postcodes, so I think leave it like it is
If we leave it like this, it will remain without a dot.

If we know where Bishkek 720001 is, regardless of what the note comments say, there is no reason to leave it unmapped (that is, without coordinates). What I said before is that I believe I have found where Bishkek 720001 is (the note comment wasn't needed to find it, and it just seems to corroborate my finding), and was asking if anyone thinks that I am not correct.
It was merged with Bishkek, so it was not unmapped. Probably it was still in the ´cache´ so that you couldn´t see the dot. When I stay on the entrance I see Interpolated coordinates: 42.8723, 74.5789 (average of all siblings), so the dot is there
Personal statistics from: NIGMM / EBTST 247 Hits with 2 triple :flag-es: 15 :flag-eu: 381
list of (known by me) latest "codes_country.txt" files Blog

User avatar
lmviterbo
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 4641
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Contact:

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Post by lmviterbo » Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:44 am

lmviterbo wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 12:41 am
If we leave it like this, it will remain without a dot.
Burdie wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:24 am
It was merged with Bishkek, so it was not unmapped. Probably it was still in the ´cache´ so that you couldn´t see the dot. When I stay on the entrance I see Interpolated coordinates: 42.8723, 74.5789 (average of all siblings), so the dot is there
:oops: It does have a dot because of interpolated coords, and I was not seeing it because I should have waited, yes. You're right, of course.

In spite of that, I insist that we have no reason to leave it without coordinates if we know where it is, and its name has no errors, as is the case of both Bishkek 720001 and Бишкек 720001, aren't I right?

(Btw, "Biskek 720000" has been attributed coordinates in spite of being misspelled. The proper procedure is to delete these coords. These are the ones that the system has to interpolate.)

User avatar
Evert
Euro-Master in Training
Euro-Master in Training
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2002 3:29 pm
Location: Helsinki

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Post by Evert » Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:24 pm

Yeah, 720001 is the actual postal code of where I got the note, I spent a long time trying to find the correct one 8)
720000 is the "general postal code" of the city and the postal code of the main post office, a bit further to east, in the other (Eastern) dot. So in this case my dot shows correctly now. Thanks!

User avatar
lmviterbo
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 4641
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Contact:

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Post by lmviterbo » Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:19 am

Thanks for the confirmation, Evert.

I added exact coords for Бишкек 720001. The dot will be the same, anyway.

Also, I deleted the coordinates that were wrongly assigned to the misspelled "Biskek 720000". Its dot isn't affected either.

siriusLT
Euro-Regular in Training
Euro-Regular in Training
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:59 am

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Post by siriusLT » Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:31 pm

Hi,

https://en.eurobilltracker.com/notes/?id=187560099 should be merged with Lazdijai, Alytus county, Lithuania. Thanks!

User avatar
lmviterbo
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 4641
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Contact:

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Post by lmviterbo » Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:14 pm

siriusLT wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:31 pm
https://en.eurobilltracker.com/notes/?id=187560099 should be merged with Lazdijai, Alytus county, Lithuania.
Someone did it already. Whoever did it, can you please write me a pm? I have something to add about this merge. Thanks!

Post Reply

Return to “Feedback and Development”