How this is calculated

At the moment you were born, every planet was in some position relative to the horizon and meridian of every point on earth. For any given planet there are places where it was exactly rising in the east, exactly setting in the west, exactly overhead, and exactly underfoot. Drawn on a map, each of those sets of places forms a line.

The overhead and underfoot lines are meridians, so they appear as straight north-south lines. The rising and setting lines are curves, because whether a body is on your horizon depends on your latitude as well as your longitude.

Astrologers read those four positions as the four chart angles: the Ascendant for identity and self-presentation, the Descendant for relationships, the Midheaven for career and public standing, and the Imum Coeli for home and inner life. A relocation chart adds a location-specific layer on top of your birth chart; it does not replace it.

Planetary positions come from a high-precision astronomical ephemeris, accurate to well under an arcminute for the bodies used here - far finer than anything this application needs. The specific source is not disclosed, both to keep the calculation stack private and because it does not change the result either way.

Your birthplace is resolved to coordinates and an IANA time zone, then your local birth time is converted to universal time using the full historical time zone database, so long-abolished offsets and wartime daylight saving rules are applied correctly rather than assuming present-day rules.

The line solver works from spherical trigonometry on each body’s right ascension and declination. It is verified independently against a second implementation of the horizon and meridian equations: sample points taken from every meridian line land within 0.006 degrees of the planet actually culminating, and points from every rising and setting line land within 0.014 degrees of true altitude zero — around a kilometre and a half on the ground.

City distances are true great-circle distances to the nearest point on a line, not distances measured off the projected map image.

A city’s score for a goal combines four ingredients. Goal relevance asks how much a given planet on a given angle relates to what you said you were doing next. Proximity applies a smooth falloff around 400 km, with nothing beyond 1000 km counted at all. Natal context gives more weight to planets that are already angular in your own birth chart. Confidence reduces the score when your birth time is uncertain.

A city is characterised by its strongest lines rather than by how many faint ones happen to be in range, so the contributions are ranked and discounted rather than simply added up. Without that, a city with six mediocre signals would outrank one sitting directly on a highly relevant line.

There is deliberately no universal “best city” number. The same city scores differently for love and for career, because the angles that matter are different.

Astrocartography has no empirically validated orb. Practitioners commonly work with influence ranges somewhere between a hundred and seven hundred miles, but there is no measured constant to appeal to. The 400 km falloff used here is a stated modelling choice, not a finding, and it is disclosed on every report for exactly that reason.

Every city card shows the raw distance in kilometres alongside the score, so you can always see the underlying fact rather than only our interpretation of it.

Interpretations are not generated on the fly. Every sentence about a planet-angle combination comes from a fixed, versioned library of forty records, each carrying a supportive reading, a harder reading, a reflective question, and a concrete low-risk action.

That is a deliberate constraint. Freely generated astrology text is fluent and frequently wrong, and it drifts toward whatever the reader seems to want to hear. A governed library can be reviewed, corrected, and versioned, and every report records which version produced it.

Interpretations drafted from traditional planetary and angular symbolism; pending review by a named practitioner before public launch.

This is a reflective tool for generating candidates and questions. It does not predict outcomes, and there is no mechanism by which it could. It will not tell you that a city will make you wealthy, healthy, partnered, or safe, and it will not tell you that a place is bad for you.

Work authorisation, budget, healthcare, tax, language, climate, safety, housing, and distance from the people you rely on will decide far more about how a move goes than anything on this map. The reports say so in the places where it matters most.