androl wrote:Gauss wrote:Coordinates for 88069 Obereisenbach had already been entered ahead, when someone generated the location 88069 Tettnang-Obereisenbach, the two corresponding city profiles were simply merged. Such Kuhkäffer take up enough time, and merging is much faster than copying coordinates.
I don't understand. But
this tells me, "88069 Obereisenbach" has coordinates and "88069 Tettnang-Obereisenbach" does not.
That's basically what I said above, isn't it?
androl wrote:And the profiles (
1,
2) are not merged.
Right.
androl wrote:(should be merged to
104275)
Wrong. The profile 1 is for a different Kuhkaff, with postal code 66887. There is also
3, Luxembourg, the likely reason why the two german placed have been entered ahead.
androl wrote:That means, the note report map heuristics knows that "88069 Obereisenbach" matches best for "88069 Tettnang-Obereisenbach" and takes that location's coordinates, and since the coordinates are exact, it means that it only takes "88069 Obereisenbach" and not "88069 Tettnang"?
No, that's not the map heuristics. That's a someone who decided to join T.-O. with O. rather than with T. As you will have noticed, I don't have a strategy to the "kuhkaff problem". Merging by German municipalities might be a solution, but the sheer size of Germany, combined with the existence proud villages that consider themselves strictly distinct from the village that administers them, and forumers with a tendency to utmost precision, is likely to render this approach infeasible. As there are plenty of other areas, things, etc. to consider I'm not likely to comment on this matter in much further detail for the next days or so.
) temporarily made "88069 Obereisenbach" a 0/1 location (notes/users), there still isn't a map in the 
