Occurences of slightly different coordinates for the same Site name and slight naming differences

[Mattists]

2022_GnecchiRuscone_CarpathianBasin.janno contains the following entries in the Site column that I think should be merged (coordinates are equal):

• Albertirsa-Szentmártoni ut
• Albertirsa Szentmártoni út

2023_Peltola_VolgaOka.janno contains Site "Shekshovo 9" with same latitude value but different longitude values:

• 40.17878
• 40.17877

Brunel_France.janno contains Site "Saulager" with different latitude and longitude values:

• 43.21817 2.4127
• 43.21818 2.4128
• 43.21819 2.4129

Brunel_France.janno also contains Site "Rosheim Mittelfeld Rosenmeer" with different latitude and longitude values:

• 48.49666 7.47052
• 48.49667 7.47053
• 48.49668 7.47054
• 48.49669 7.47055

Brunel_France.janno also contains Site "Lotissement Les Terrasses de la Zornr" with different latitude and longitude values:

• 48.75563 7.59958
• 48.75564 7.59959

Brunel_France.janno also contains Site "Les Perrats" with different latitude and longitude values:

• 45.77 0.33
• 45.78 0.34
• 45.79 0.35

[stschiff]

Hmm, I think these different Long/Lats for the same site might actually be real, in the sense that the authors did this on purpose. Do you have any insight on this, @AyGhal, @nevrome, @TCLamnidis ? It feels to me that manually correcting them now might be wrong. You should of course feel free to adapt them in your application if you want to merge these.

With respect to the 2022_GnecchiRuscone_CarpathianBasin.janno note: Yes, those sites should be merged, good catch!

[TCLamnidis]

The fact that both Lon and Lat are incremented by 1 on the last digit makes it more likely to be caused by an Excel autofill mistake, and not intended.
It is always possible that it is intended of course. The only way to know for sure would be to ask the contributors.

[stschiff]

Ah good point. Could be true. But again: Should we fix these and force them to be all the same Lat/Long? I'm leaning not to. I don't see why this even is a problem, in the first place.

[Mattists]

Ah good point. Could be true. But again: Should we fix these and force them to be all the same Lat/Long? I'm leaning not to. I don't see why this even is a problem, in the first place.

A potential problem for me is that there is no exact match in the lat and long value, even though the same real-life entity (site) is (probably) referred by the different entries.

I also understand your point that it might be intended to differentiate the sites.

I am fine with leaving it as it is if you think this is the better way to handle this. :)

[nevrome]

I think these are clearly simple input errors and should be fixed. These coordinate differences certainly have no meaning - they're so close to each other that you could not even differentiate the coordinates with a handheld GPS receiver.

Why are you reluctant to just fix this, @stschiff? Is your argument that coordinates should be further rounded anyway for spatial data analysis and we should not waste time on this?

[stschiff]

Oh well, I think you may be right about the typo, @nevrome. I admit, I don't care that much. If anyone feels like submitting a PR with a fix, I would green-light it, I think.

[stschiff]

We decided in our meeting today that this should be fixed.