Page 259 of 343
Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:59 am
by Burdie
I have brushed up my greek (or I found a way to copy and past the translation

)
All the coordinates are in, only for some places are not assigned to a Municipality.
I'm not for sure if every greek Municipality has his unique postcode. If so than I found this:
Kokkinoekklisies 
Kymi-Aliveri
Strofilia 
Mantoudi–Limni–Agia Anna
Nees Pagases 
Volos
Egira 
Aigialeia
Loutra Thermopilou 
Lamia
Please correct me if I'm wrong or give me an OK if I'm right and I take care of it
Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:54 pm
by de*lerger
The Greek part of my map is looking much better now. There's only one white gap left, the Loutraki dot. It’s supposed to be the dot above Korinthos.
The municipalities look OK to me. Seen the names before when looking for postal codes and other info on the various places.
Thanks Burdie (& anyone else involved)
Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:36 am
by Burdie
@de*lerger: All done now.
Ik heb de dot van Loutraki nu ook verplaatst. Deze waren al ingevuld en ik wilde niet op iemands teentjes trappen. Ik ben namelijk een leek in griekenland. Ik zie niet dat de dot is verplaatst. Het kan zijn dat de coordinaten in de zelfde dot vallen, Of dat het te maken heeft dat het in de 'catch' is. Het kan ook zijn dat ik toe ben aan een nieuw brilletje

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 1:47 am
by de*lerger
You don't need new glasses Burdie
The Loutraki coordinates seem to be at the right place now.
Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:54 pm
by Nick6502
Les Gottes
Les Gottes is a hamlet in the village of
Strée, part of the municipality of
Modave.
Les Gottes is now linked to the village of
Outrelouxhe.
So if Les Gottes doesn't get a separate profile (which I could understand), then it should be linked to Strée and not to Outrelouxhe.
Thank you.
Source.
Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:03 pm
by LArdennais
Nick6502 wrote:Les Gottes
Les Gottes is a hamlet in the village of
Strée, part of the municipality of
Modave.
Les Gottes is now linked to the village of
Outrelouxhe.
So if Les Gottes doesn't get a separate profile (which I could understand), then it should be linked to Strée and not to Outrelouxhe.
Thank you.
Source.
Please see
my 2014's answer for this "only hamlet" . Yes, in 2014, I have personnally called the Modave's municipal administration AND I have personnaly gone to see these two hamlets (which are not far from "my home"

) for finally inputting "Les Gottes" and "Rausa" into the "city" of Outrelouxhe
with their own coordinates - and not inputting them into the "city" of Strée, which stays just next to Outrelouxhe.
Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 11:17 pm
by Crazy Bob
Newtownbutler 
has a dot, but unfortunately in the middle of Russia rather than in Northern Ireland...
Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2016 12:20 am
by Burdie
Crazy Bob wrote:Newtownbutler 
has a dot, but unfortunately in the middle of Russia rather than in Northern Ireland...
What day is it today
Sorry, my fault. Suddenly the Irish plotter has it bussy, People starting to use the eircode and I try to pinpoint everything. Yesterday it was a little late, but it is now corrected. Hope to see you tomorrow. I try to start my car at 5 O'Clock

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:26 pm
by Raumi
Let's have a look over

Peru.
1.
Aguas Caliente and
Aquas Caliente I understand both refer to
Aguas Calientes. It is the main village in
Machupicchu district, belonging to
Urubamba Province, in
Cusco.
(Seriously guys, two attempts and zero right
)
2.
Machu Picchu, written in two words, is not a town nor a village, but the archaeological site. It should be merged with Aguas Calientes, and perhaps renamed
Machupicchu, but most Peruvians prefeer the name Aguas Calientes when talking about the village.
3.
Pachacama is also misspelt. Should be
Pachacámac. Here there might be some confusion, as Pachacámac could be a district in Lima Province, or an
archaeological site. I bet it refers to the second one, so it should be renamed as
Lurín since this is the district where the site is. By the way, Lurín belongs to
Lima Province.
4.
Sacsayhuaman is an archaeological site, not too far away from
Cusco, where I find almost impossible to get a euro note. I was there during December 2.014, and there is nothing but big impressive stones and grass. No shops, no exchange offices, no ATMs. So this town sould be merged with Cusco.
5.
Santa Anita Belongs to
Lima (city province), not to Lima Region. By the way, it would be nice to rename
Lima (city province) to
Provincia de Lima.
Thank you in advice.
Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 10:14 pm
by Burdie
Raumi wrote:Let's have a look over

Peru.
It is getting a little bit quieter in Ireland

so I give it a try.
1.
Aguas Caliente and
Aquas Caliente I understand both refer to
Aguas Calientes. It is the main village in
Machupicchu district, belonging to
Urubamba Province, in
Cusco.
(Seriously guys, two attempts and zero right
)
2.
Machu Picchu, written in two words, is not a town nor a village, but the archaeological site. It should be merged with Aguas Calientes, and perhaps renamed
Machupicchu, but most Peruvians prefeer the name Aguas Calientes when talking about the village.
After reading this
Wiki page I'm douthing to merge two profiles in one Machupicchu.
3.
Pachacama is also misspelt. Should be
Pachacámac. Here there might be some confusion, as Pachacámac could be a district in Lima Province, or an
archaeological site. I bet it refers to the second one, so it should be renamed as
Lurín since this is the district where the site is. By the way, Lurín belongs to
Lima Province.
Postal code 15800 takes me to Lurín, so that is the name now.
4.
Sacsayhuaman is an archaeological site, not too far away from
Cusco, where I find almost impossible to get a euro note. I was there during December 2.014, and there is nothing but big impressive stones and grass. No shops, no exchange offices, no ATMs. So this town sould be merged with Cusco.
Postal code 08165 says this is the place so I merged it with Cusco
Done, althoug I did not renamed the region name. Someone else can do that.
Thank you in advice.
Your Welcome and Thank You.
If you looking further there are more profiles in Peru without a dot. I leave it for now. I'm gonna look in to it in the futher
Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:40 pm
by Raumi
Great job!
Burdie wrote:
Postal code 15800 takes me to Lurín, so that is the name now.
Just a minor thing, you added Lurín to
Lima Region, but it belongs to
Lima Province. I know it is confusing but when talking about Lima, the province doesn't belong to the region. Wikipedia might mess it up a little bit, but you can trust me.
Thanks again!
Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 7:19 am
by negative
Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:52 pm
by lmviterbo
Not missing any more.

Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 7:45 pm
by negative
Re: Incorrect dots and inaccuracies among city profiles
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 8:46 pm
by lmviterbo
Merged, thanks.