Page 96 of 343

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 1:06 pm
by eddydevries
GP wrote:http://nl.eurobilltracker.com/notes/?id=61645332

Wrong dot.. It belongs in this dot:

Zoetermeer
To be more precize (according to Google Earth):

The coordinates of this village are: East 4.4208766; North 51.98531250000001


And those of anothe village ('t Woudt) are: East 4.2936288; North 51.9955136

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:30 am
by Crossmaster
Gattenhofen is a part of the commune Steinsfeld (profile doesn´t exist yet)

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:53 am
by Juud
This is an old one. Few years ago I've inserted bills in Içmeler(48720), Turkey. Içmeler is about 5 km from Marmaris (48700). So, this dot is wrong... And this also doesn't make sence. The dot should appear about here

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:53 pm
by Crazy Bob
Scheveningen is part of the city of Den Haag. See here (English) and here (in Dutch).

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:34 pm
by LonaPo
Missing dot for Zgornja Korena :flag-si:

Coordinates 46° 31′ 14.21″ N, 15° 46′ 44.97″ E
Decimal 46.520614, 15.779158

Thank you

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:06 pm
by yli
There is something wrong with the cityprofile of :flag-de: Boxberg/Oberlausitz

You entered 3 notes from this city.

First appearance on EBT: 0000-00-00 (I entered on 2007-09-10)

Users who entered notes from this city: 1

Notes entered in Boxberg/Oberlausitz: 0

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:49 pm
by GP
Crazy Bob wrote:Scheveningen is part of the city of Den Haag. See here (English) and here (in Dutch).
13 months ago I already sayd that. Look to this post:

http://www.eurobilltrackerforum.com/vie ... en#p532045

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:27 pm
by de*lerger
The name Seeryp (postal code 8892) is officially changed into Striep. So these two profiles can be merged.

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:22 am
by tigerpranke
Please split :flag-de: Weiding (ID 112825) into

:note-5: note :flag-de: 92557 Weiding (Landkreis Schwandorf) :arrow: Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weiding_(L ... chwandorf)
:note-10: note :flag-de: 93459 Weiding (Landkreis Cham) :arrow: Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weiding_(Landkreis_Cham)

thanks

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:15 am
by googlejaps
I found two entries for the same belgian village (different spelling):

Meersel-Dreef and Meerseldreef.

The first one seems to be the right one. The profile of Meerseldreef only has one visitor that entered 2 notes.

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:58 am
by tigerpranke
Please rename
:flag-de: 82547 Eurasburg (ID 26406) to Eurasburg (Oberbayern) :arrow: Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasburg_(Oberbayern) and
:flag-de: 86495 Eurasburg (ID 26407) to Eurasburg (Schwaben) :arrow: Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasburg_(Schwaben)

When searching for "Eurasburg" it only shows 1 location whose link points to 86495 Eurasburg (ID 26407).

thanks

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:40 pm
by Olivier.ch
http://fr.eurobilltracker.eu/notes/?id=61703601

Wrong dot.

Weissenberg (I don't have bêta letter for double "s") 88138 near by Lindau in Bayern region.

Thank you.

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:18 pm
by Burdie
Testing the new feature of Visitors I came to Rozenburg (Noord-Holland). This town did not have the new feature. Maybe because the total of notes entered in Rozenburg (Noord-Holland) is -216. Indeed it is Minus.

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:01 pm
by tigerpranke

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:03 am
by yli
Please split the following cityprofiles :

:flag-nl: Bavel

postal code 4854 is Bavel
postal code 4859 is Bavel (Alphen-Chaam)

:flag-nl: Ulvenhout

postal codes 4850 and 4851 is Ulvenhout
postal code 4858 is Ulvenhout (Alphen-Chaam)

The main locations are in the municipality Breda, but a small part of both villages are part of the municipality Alphen-Chaam (since 1997, after a reorganisation of the municipality border is that area)