EuroBillTracker

Mr Euro wrote:

Ord€p wrote:

Mr Euro wrote:Benfica is a part of Lissabon, but it is a parish of Lissabon. What's the point of merging parts of cities in bigger cities? Otherwise we can merge all cities to one. Because we are all part of the European Community.

The point of this thread is to merge cities that are exactly the same, "not a part of"

Benfica is a part of Lissabon just like Chueca is a part of Madrid, Raval is a part of Barcelona, Opera is a part of Paris, Chelsea is a part of London, Mitte is a part of Berlin, and so on...

Benfica is in Lissabon just like the others examples. They should be merged with Lissabon.

If you don't read my answers completly, it has no point to discuss any further.

"A part of" is not the same as "exactly the same" see my example of Bamberg above

@Mr Euro:
If I understand you correctly, you think that if someone enters notes using "Tiergarten" as a city name instead of "Berlin", those notes should remain separate from the rest of the Berlin notes.
Is this how you think about it?

Dakkus wrote:If I understand you correctly, you think that if someone enters notes using "Tiergarten" as a city name instead of "Berlin", those notes should remain separate from the rest of the Berlin notes.
Is this how you think about it?

No Dakkus, this is NOT what Mr Euro or me tries to say, and you know that! So why asking??

Lisboa is one city, which has some parishes and Belém, Benfica, Marvila and so on are just that, parishes of Lisboa.
Besides that each parish belongs to a quarter, Lisbon has 4 quarters and 53 Parishes
None of them are cities neither will become one. i believe that´s what Ord€p`s trying to explain, and makes no sense creating more 53 cities when all of them ARE the city of Lisboa, maybe what some users are crictisizing about it is the coordinates of bill insertion which will correspond to the zip code and if the bill was first registered in Belém (west part of Lisboa) and afterwords will be registered in Parque das Nações ( East part of Lisboa) the hit with the parishes merging will be 0 km and without the merging will be (roughly) 10km ... is that it?

suntzu wrote:... maybe what some users are crictisizing about it is the coordinates of bill insertion which will correspond to the zip code and if the bill was first registered in Belém (west part of Lisboa) and afterwords will be registered in Parque das Nações ( East part of Lisboa) the hit with the parishes merging will be 0 km and without the merging will be (roughly) 10km ... is that it?

No the coordinates will remain as they are now. You can get Lisboa-Lisboa hits with 0km (same zip) or 5 km. This has nothing to do with the city profile. Look at this hit for exaple: http://de.eurobilltracker.eu/notes/?id=46446792 all entered in "Wien" but the coordinates of the bills look like that: http://www.eurobilltracker.at/map.php?id=46446792

bhoeyb NLI wrote:

Dakkus wrote:If I understand you correctly, you think that if someone enters notes using "Tiergarten" as a city name instead of "Berlin", those notes should remain separate from the rest of the Berlin notes.
Is this how you think about it?

No Dakkus, this is NOT what Mr Euro or me tries to say, and you know that! So why asking??

You argument with Belem being a parish (a burocratical unit, you complaint of before) of Lisboa so it doesn't belong to the city.
Yes, maybe 400 years ago Belem WAS a city, but it's not anymore. The same thing happend in Berlin. Berlin consists of a lot of formerly independent cities with grew together and where from then on called BERLIN. This was about 800 years ago. And since then the same thing happen to a lot more cities, which were independent when Berlin was founded. They are not any more.

Berlin-Spandau for example:

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin-Spandau wrote:Entgegen allgemein verbreiteter Ansicht wird in der am 7. März 1232 von den Markgrafen Johann I. und Otto III. ausgestellten Urkunde Spandau nicht das Stadtrecht erteilt. Der Text der Urkunde macht vielmehr deutlich, dass Spandau bereits Stadtrechte besitzt und hier noch zusätzliche Rechte

This text says: That in a note from March 7th 1232 Johann I. und Otto III. state that Spandau already has city priviliges and gets some more rights from now one.

bhoeyb NLI wrote:

Dakkus wrote:If I understand you correctly, you think that if someone enters notes using "Tiergarten" as a city name instead of "Berlin", those notes should remain separate from the rest of the Berlin notes.
Is this how you think about it?

No Dakkus, this is NOT what Mr Euro or me tries to say, and you know that! So why asking??

Maybe we should ignore Belgium in this matter - as long as Belgians don't question requests for every other country in the world.

I know I won't say anything about a city in Belgium ever again.

I get your point, but as I said, this topic is to merge profiles which are exactly the same. See my example of Bamberg.

Just a question out of curiosity. Don't you find it interesting to know the cityratio of each parish (Belém, Benfica, Marvila and so on)? If I am correct, you can't calculate them anymore once they are merged. Only the cityratio of Lisboa as whole.

Mr Euro wrote: Just a question out of curiosity. Don't you find it interesting to know the cityratio of each parish (Belém, Benfica, Marvila and so on)?

I guess such hitratio would be falsified. For example only a few notes where entered in Gerresheim. Most Gerresheim notes are entered under 40625 Düsseldorf and 40627 Düsseldorf.

Belém wasn´t a city but 200 years ago was separate from Lisboa, but since 1885 is part of the city, and became a parish ever since.
My doubt on this is how it works inside EBT this Geo issue.
The zip codes mark the area where i get the note, right?
But in the definition eg: xxxx-xxx Benfica, if it is merged with Lisboa, the bills entered in the parish of Benfica will be merged with the bills that were entered in Lisboa, but geographically will show up in Benfica parish ... did i understood it right?
Probably what i`m thinking is a huge non-sense, but if in the insertion field for the city will be added a new field for a parish i think that will resolve most of the issues.
You could insert the name of the parish (eg:Benfica) and in the zip code it would be inserted xxxx-xxx Lisboa, the same for all the places in Europe that have the same problem.
But probably inside the EBT database will be a difficult task to perform. By the away, anyone knows how it works in the EBT database?

magpie wrote:

Mr Euro wrote: Just a question out of curiosity. Don't you find it interesting to know the cityratio of each parish (Belém, Benfica, Marvila and so on)?

I guess such hitratio would be falsified. For example only a few notes where entered in Gerresheim. Most Gerresheim notes are entered under 40625 Düsseldorf and 40627 Düsseldorf.

Exactly. And quite frankly the same thing happens in Belgium, too.

Sint-Amandsberg (ID 92248) contains the following sublocations wrote:Gent (sint-amandsberg) (9040)
Sint amandsberg (9040)
Sint amandsberg (9041)

and

Gent (ID 31118) contains the following sublocations wrote:Gent (9040)
Gent (9041)

And I would say a lot of bills seen/recived/etc. in the parish/city-part "Sint-Amandsberg" of Gent are entered under "Gent (9040)". That's what I would have done and that's what I will do when I'm visiting Gent in Sept.

And if you take this as given it doesn't really make sence to keep the profiles apart because than you got two mangled profiles, does it?

suntzu wrote:My doubt on this is how it works inside EBT this Geo issue.

Not really an issue:

knospe wrote:the coordinates will remain as they are now. You can get Lisboa-Lisboa hits with 0km (same zip) or 5 km. This has nothing to do with the city profile. Look at this hit for exaple: http://de.eurobilltracker.eu/notes/?id=46446792 all entered in "Wien" but the coordinates of the bills look like that: http://www.eurobilltracker.at/map.php?id=46446792

knospe wrote:

Sint-Amandsberg (ID 92248) contains the following sublocations wrote:Gent (sint-amandsberg) (9040)
Sint amandsberg (9040)
Sint amandsberg (9041)

and

Gent (ID 31118) contains the following sublocations wrote:Gent (9040)
Gent (9041)

And I would say a lot of bills seen/recived/etc. in the parish/city-part "Sint-Amandsberg" of Gent are entered under "Gent (9040)". That's what I would have done and that's what I will do when I'm visiting Gent in Sept.

In this particular case, the ID should all be merged to Gent-Sint Amandsberg (9040/9041). BUT not to Gent 9000

Mr Euro wrote:

knospe wrote:

Sint-Amandsberg (ID 92248) contains the following sublocations wrote:Gent (sint-amandsberg) (9040)
Sint amandsberg (9040)
Sint amandsberg (9041)

and

Gent (ID 31118) contains the following sublocations wrote:Gent (9040)
Gent (9041)

And I would say a lot of bills seen/recived/etc. in the parish/city-part "Sint-Amandsberg" of Gent are entered under "Gent (9040)". That's what I would have done and that's what I will do when I'm visiting Gent in Sept.

In this particular case, the ID should all be merged to Gent-Sint Amandsberg (9040/9041). BUT not to Gent 9000

This was just an extract - There are much more subprofiles in Gent (ID 31118) (9000, 9010, ...), as this ist the Gent main profile. You can look at every profile I sugested to merge with Gent (Gent (ID 31118)) and find the exact zip codes also in Gent (ID 31118). Do you really think it's appropriate to split up Gent?

As I said before: You must know what's right for your cities. I just don't get why you whould want _that_!

I'd like to give my opinion on this. I'm Dutch but live in Belgium and together with some other Dutch and Belgians I'm a location hunter, trying to get notes from as many locations as possible. A location is in my opinion a city, a village or even a hamlet. Mostly we only use a separate name for a village or hamlet when it has it's own town sign.

It the case of Gent as stated above, Gent is the name of a city and a municipallity. The city of Gent consists of several parishes, i.e. "Binnenstad", "Stationsbuurt-Noord", "Stationsbuurt-Zuid", "Brugsepoort-Rooigem" and many more (source official site of city of Gent). The municipallity of Gent consists of the city of Gent, plus a lot of "Deelgemeenten" , see wikipedia: 9030 Mariakerke, 9031 Drongen, 9032 Wondelgem, 9040 Sint-Amandsberg, 9041 Oostakker, 9042 Desteldonk, 9042 Mendonk, 9042 Sint-Kruis-Winkel, 9050 Gentbrugge, 9050 Ledeberg, 9051 Afsnee, 9051 Sint-Denijs-Westrem and 9052 Zwijnaarde. These are all different villages, they should have their own town signs (I can't check as I don't live near Gent).

Some users are extremely precise when it comes to locations, I'm one of them. Others use i.e. 9052 Gent for Zwijnaarde. It is impossible to sort out all these locations by postal code as some villages have the same postal codes. On the other hand I wouldn't like to see all profiles merged to Gent as I love to check out profiles of smaller villages, see if I'm the first EBT'er in some small town etc.

Another difficulty in Belgium and Holland is that some municipallities seem to dissappear and are swallowed by bigger cities/municipallities. So it could happen that one town within a municipallity will be part of another municipallity some years from now, and another village in the same municipallity goes to another municipallity. Believe me this has happened before. Wouldn't it be hard to sort everything out then!

It is a difficult situation and opinions vary on this subject. I would propose that the Belgians sort out the way to merge Belgian cities, Germans stick to their German cities and we Belgians don't complain on the way German cityprofiles are handled (and I know not every Belgian agrees on how it's beeing done in Germany) and vice versa.

Just my two €-cents...

I think you don't want to have profiles of parishes, but only profiles of "villages"
but there the problem starts. Which part of a municipality is a parish and which one is a village? There are most often no lists of villages availible that do not contain the parishes that are part of the central town but were separate villages some centuries ago

and if a village moves from one town to another, the location "1234 town1-village" can still be moved to the city profile town2, but the notes entered in "1234 town1" can not be changed to town2 because no one knows that they are from village

androl wrote:I think you don't want to have profiles of parishes, but only profiles of "villages"

True.

androl wrote: but there the problem starts. Which part of a municipality is a parish and which one is a village? There are most often no lists of villages availible that do not contain the parishes that are part of the central town but were separate villages some centuries ago

For Belgium and Holland this is not a big problem. There are distinct town signs for every village, a parish would have a different sign. Although there might be some cities where the town signs are not that clear.

androl wrote:and if a village moves from one town to another, the location "1234 town1-village" can still be moved to the city profile town2, but the notes entered in "1234 town1" can not be changed to town2 because no one knows that they are from village

True, one of the reasons I don't like to use the name of the municipallity. I'd like to be as precise as possible.