Page 75 of 343

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:41 am
by vermeer
http://nl.eurobilltracker.eu/profile/?city=7717

This above is Bath in England.

However we have in the Netherlands also a place called Bath.

Please make this link below in the Netherlands.

http://nl.eurobilltracker.eu/notes/?id=50316811

Place received banknotes is: http://www.reymerswael.nl/

Image

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:38 am
by klapotec
knospe wrote:The english dictionary tells an other story. And since the official name would be greek or turkish anyway, I'd guess they ment to write it in English for the tourists and made a little typo. And Baths and of are english words ... so I thourght Aphrodite should be, too. No :?: Ok :!:
Aphrodite is a transcription based on classical Greek pronunciation, while Afrodite is based on modern Greek. And if the locals transcribe it like that, it's a perfectly valid spelling (and maybe even official), not a typo.

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:24 pm
by Säbb

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:57 pm
by Crazy Bob NLI

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:50 pm
by vermeer
Bath (Netherlands)

Bath is a small village and a former municipality in the Dutch province of Zeeland. It is now located in the municipality of Reimerswaal, about 10 km southwest of Bergen op Zoom. Bath has a population of about 80.

According to the 19th century historian A.J. van der Aa, the former village of Bath was hit by floods several times in the 16th century: in 1530, 1532, 1536 and 1539. After these floods, only the church tower of the village was left, but it too had disappeared by the 19th century. In 1773, a part of the area was reclaimed from the sea again, and a fort, Fort Bath, was built to protect the ships who collected the toll for passing ships. A small hamlet was built inside the fort; this became the new village of Bath.

Bath was a separate municipality until 1878 (called "Fort Bath" until 1816), when it became a part of the municipality of Rilland-Bath.

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:55 pm
by knospe
klapotec wrote:Aphrodite is a transcription based on classical Greek pronunciation, while Afrodite is based on modern Greek.
Thanks for the explanation.

// Ritterhude/Platjenwerbe (ID 147074) :arrow: Ritterhude (ID 80550)
// Horb (ID 147053) :arrow: Horb am Neckar (ID 41921)
// Deppoldshausen (ID 147068) :arrow: Göttingen (ID 32272) (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deppoldshausen)
// "Cappel (74613)" from "Cappel (ID 16040)" :arrow: Cappel (Hohenlohe)
// "Cappel (59556)" from "Cappel (ID 16040)" :arrow: Lippstadt (ID 55593)
// "Cappel (34560)" from "Cappel (ID 16040)" :arrow: Fritzlar (ID 29302)
// Loxstedt-Donnern (ID 147069), Loxstedt bexhoevede (ID 56697), Loxstedt bexhövede (ID 56696), "Büttel (27612)" from "Büttel (ID 8337)", Dedesdorf (ID 20599), Donnern (ID 22135), Düring (ID 20413), Eidewarden (ID 24136), Fleeste (ID 27890), Hetthorn (ID 39692), "Holte (27612)" from "Holte (ID 41526)", Lanhausen (ID 52261), Maihausen (ID 57815), "Nesse (27612)" from "Nesse (ID 65279)", Overwarfe (ID 72513), Schwegen (ID 90624), "Stinstedt (27612)" from "Stinstedt (ID 101922)", Stotel (ID 102200), Ueterlande (ID 106658), Wiemsdorf (ID 114377) :arrow: Loxstedt (ID 56695) (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loxstedt#G ... gliederung)

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 9:26 pm
by Nick6502
Am I just wrong or has this Greek city moved to neighbour Turkey?

http://nl.eurobilltracker.com/notes/?id=50401246

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:19 pm
by knospe
Nick6502 wrote:Am I just wrong or has this Greek city moved to neighbour Turkey?
http://nl.eurobilltracker.com/notes/?id=50401246
The coordinates are correct.

Ν Μαρμαράς (ID 147129) :arrow: Neos Marmaras (ID 132963)
Ν Ποτείδαια (ID 147131), Moudania (ID 63426) :arrow: Nea Moudania (ID 64950)
Frankfurt (ID 147120) :arrow: Eschborn (ID 25884) (zip code 65729 is a PO Box zip for No. 5401 - 5480 in Eschborn)
Bachgrund (ID 147105) :arrow: Büttelborn (ID 8338) (Bachgrund is a street in Büttelborn)
Mepen (ID 147077) :arrow: Meppen (ID 60807)
Skopelos magnisias (ID 147031), Skopelos (ID 92539) :arrow: Skopelos (ID 92538)
Alonnisos magnisias (ID 147032) :arrow: Alonnisos (ID 2240)
Skiathos magnisias (ID 146956) :arrow: Skiathos (ID 92528)
Arxagelos Pellis (ID 143687), Agio Efemia (ID 136682) :arrow: Unknown City (GR)


Theologos (ID 147122) :arrow: Paradissi (ID 72974)
Platanes (ID 147088) :arrow: Rethymnon (ID 79602)
Moni Arkadiou (ID 147087) :arrow: Rethymnon (ID 79602) (this is in Greece!)
Mourteri (ID 146959) :arrow: Avlonari (Aylonari, Αυλωνάρι)
Kalogria (ID 145362) :arrow: S. S. Vardas
(According to postal.gr all those "cities" are streets in the cities mentioned. Search for the zip code.)

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:44 pm
by Nick6502
knospe wrote:
Nick6502 wrote:Am I just wrong or has this Greek city moved to neighbour Turkey?
http://nl.eurobilltracker.com/notes/?id=50401246
The coordinates are correct.
Thanks, on this Google map you can actually see it lying on the Greek-Turkish border.

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 2:06 pm
by giraf
Hello,

I entered a bill in the city of Montclar (France).
But there is a problem with the dot/city.

There is 3 cities named Montclar in France:
- Montclar (in Aveyron (12)) zipcode 12550
- Montclar (in Aude (11)) zipcode 11250
- Montclar (in Alpes-de-Haute-Provence (04)) zipcode 04140

Currently I think the dot is located on Montclar in Aude (12550).
Two other users entered bill here.
But my bill (this one) was entered in Montclar in Alpes-de-Haute-Provence 04140

Thx

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 5:01 am
by roberdy
This note (and several others) should belong to Macau(english/portuguese)/Macao(french/german) and not to :flag-pt:Mação.

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:51 am
by magpie
Can :flag-be: 3670 Meeuwen be assigned to :flag-be: 3670 Meeuwen-Gruitrode?
Can :flag-be: 5640 Maison-St-Gérard be assigned to :flag-be: 5640 Maison or to :flag-be: 5640 Saint-Gérard?

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 1:08 am
by yli
Or to put it the other way around :

:flag-be: 3670 Meeuwen-Gruitrode should be assigned to :flag-be: 3670 Meeuwen or :flag-be: 3670 Gruitrode (yes I know, impossible :evil: )

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 1:22 am
by Yelverdack
Châtel, Haute-Savoie, France (zip 74390) is not in the correct dot
http://fr.eurobilltracker.eu/profile/?city=17572
There is probably many cities called Châtel in France.
Could you correct mine, please ?

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 1:25 am
by lmviterbo
magpie wrote:Can :flag-be: 5640 Maison-St-Gérard be assigned to :flag-be: 5640 Maison or to :flag-be: 5640 Saint-Gérard?
My usual reasoning as a plotter is to assume that when some ebtist defines a "city" as Small Place - Larger Place, as is the case here, the note probably was from Small Place, and s/he was just trying to specify exactly which Small Place this is within an universe of several places named the same as Small Place, without realizing that Small Place + Zipcode would most likely be enough to define the exact place.

So I believe we can take an educated guess and assume the location here should be 5640 Maison.