Research places for two people

How do we start with the right two birth records?

First generate your map, then open Find the Best Places for Two People from the map results. The first person's input is already shown under Your birth details. Check that it belongs to the person you intend to compare; use Edit birth details if it does not.

1. Under The other person's birth details, enter the second person's birth date and local birth time.
2. Search for their birthplace and select the correct suggestion, checking the country and full place name. Their birthplace is separate from the destination you want to investigate. If entering coordinates instead, check both coordinates and the timezone.
3. Keep an unknown time marked as unknown. A guessed noon time does not establish a complete two-person result. See the limits for unknown birth times.
4. Choose What matters most?: Overall Fit, Career Growth, Relationships & Social Life, or Home & Settling Down. Keep this choice fixed while making your first comparison.

Overall Fit combines the career, relationships, and home themes used by this feature. It is not a reading of every possible life topic. If you want interactions between birth charts rather than city choices, use the synastry chart calculator. For help choosing the research type, see shared-place research and relationship charts.

The worked example below uses synthetic birth details: 15 January 1990, 12:00, London, United Kingdom, and 15 June 1992, 08:30, New York, United States. Both times are supplied, and the goal stays Overall Fit throughout. Its results were generated with AstroCarto's local calculation flow; they illustrate how to read the output, rather than a customer outcome or a recommendation for everyone considering these cities.

The shared assessments, both personal readings, and tiers in this guide describe the complete results. Your Preview contains a limited first-person reading and a shared hint. Follow the panel's access message if those complete fields are unavailable.

If either person is already in your account, reuse their stored birth details and check the filled-in fields before running the shared analysis. Selecting a person supplies input; it does not reopen a previous shared result.

How do we find candidates when we have no shortlist?

Leave Cities empty, choose the goal and Search scope, then select Find Our Best Places. Use Region to narrow discovery to an area, or Country to focus on one country. These controls apply to discovery; they do not filter cities you select manually.

Discovery returns up to ten supported candidates from a bounded city pool. It does not evaluate every settlement in the world. If a city you care about is absent, select it manually for a shared reading before deciding what its absence means.

In the worked example, the scope is Worldwide, with Any country selected. Discovery returned ten candidates, including:

This table shows three of the returned candidates, not the full list. Their shared tier is a reason to read both personal findings before choosing between them, rather than treating the first row as a unique winner. In Edinburgh, the first person's strongest theme is career and the second person's is also career. In Bournemouth, the second person's strongest theme is home and belonging, although career is supported for both people.

Keep Edinburgh and Bournemouth as candidates for this example. Next, add Lisbon as a separate destination to investigate. Lisbon was manually added; it was not in this discovery's ten candidates. This lets us examine a real alternative without assuming that discovery has exhausted all possible choices.

How do we check a destination that interests both of us?

Select one city from the Cities suggestions and use Check This City for Two People. To inspect a discovered candidate, use the action with that name on its card. If you have several cities selected, remove the others to return to a single-city check. Confirm the full place name so you do not investigate a different city with the same name.

For this example, select Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, keeping the same two birth records and Overall Fit goal. The complete single-city result contains:

The first person's caution reads: “Career demands or uncertainty deserve attention; allow room for adjustment in your work plans.” That can coexist with a promising career theme. It tells the pair what needs discussion; it does not establish that a specific employer, job offer, or income will be difficult.

A single-city reading does not show a city-comparison tier. To decide whether Lisbon should take priority over Edinburgh or Bournemouth, compare those cities together rather than inventing an order from the single-city summaries.

How do we compare a shortlist without losing either person's needs?

Select two to six distinct cities from the suggestions and use Compare Cities for Two People. Remove a city before adding a seventh. For this example, select Edinburgh, Bournemouth, and Lisbon; keep the same birth details and Overall Fit. After changing the city list or goal, run the analysis again.

Read Priority tier alongside the shared assessment and the two personal summaries:

Priority tiers group close results; their numbers can skip. Here, two cities share Tier 1 and Lisbon is Tier 3. There is no missing city that you must find to fill Tier 2. A tier is a relative priority within the cities and goal being considered, not a success probability or a universal rating of the destination.

The two Tier 1 cities remain different discussion options. Use their personal readings to ask whether each person's priorities are represented. Keep Lisbon as a conditional alternative if there is a practical reason to consider it; do not discard its first-person caution just because career appears under the shared benefit.

For a closer comparison, read Compared with on the relevant city card when a reference city is available. In this example, Lisbon is compared with Edinburgh: the first person's career balance is less favorable, and the second person's relationships and home balance is less favorable. These are relative support-and-pressure findings. They do not mean Lisbon has no career support, or that Edinburgh's housing or social life has been checked in the real world.

If Your Priorities Change groups candidates by the feature's other themes. In this example, Career Growth identifies Edinburgh and Bournemouth, while the relationships and home entries show no clear shared winner. That is a finding about these selected candidates under those priorities. It is not a finding that neither person has any support, or that no suitable city exists elsewhere. If a new priority becomes your main question, select it and rerun the comparison.

How can a shared benefit and a personal caution both be true?

Where You Both Benefit identifies themes supported for both people. Both Personal Readings preserves what could work and what needs attention for each person. Read them as three layers of the same city result:

1. Read the shared assessment and Where You Both Benefit. Check whether the shared theme matches the goal you are investigating. A shared home theme alone does not establish shared career support.
2. Open Both Personal Readings, then compare For You and The Other Person. Under each, read What Could Work Well and What to Watch. A supportive summary does not erase a caution further down.
3. If the result calls out more pronounced pressure for one or both people, keep that warning in the decision. Another person's benefit does not cancel it. When support is insufficient, similarly weak results are not evidence of a balanced fit.

Lisbon demonstrates the distinction: the common theme is career, but the first person also has a career caution. This example does not identify more pronounced pressure for either person, so the ordinary caution should not be upgraded to that stronger warning. It does explain why a shared theme alone is insufficient to choose Lisbon over the two Tier 1 options.

Turn the findings into a discussion note. For this example, a note could be:

Overall Fit — keep Edinburgh and Bournemouth as the first options to investigate. Keep Lisbon as an alternative if its practical advantages justify further research. Both people have career support in Lisbon, but the first person needs room for work-plan adjustment. Before moving Lisbon higher on our shortlist, clarify that person's working hours, contract flexibility, and the household budget.

This is an author-suggested note based on the example results, not an AI answer or a saved product field. The work and budget questions are practical checks, not facts calculated by the map. You can use the same format with your own results: city and goal → shared theme → each person's support or caution → condition for keeping the city → practical question to resolve.

The shared-place cards summarize themes rather than listing individual planetary lines and kilometer distances. Use the shared and personal findings actually shown here; do not import a single-person line reading as proof of the pair's conclusion. If the main question is which research tool to use next, return to the shared-place workflow guide.

To turn the findings into a planning task, build a shared moving shortlist with conditions, next checks, and responsibilities for both people.

What should we do if the result is limited, empty, or unavailable?

Identify the reason before changing the inputs or access. Missing birth information, an incomplete preview, and a discovery search with no supported candidates require different next steps.

Once the input or access issue is resolved, repeat the relevant discovery, single-city, or comparison action. Keep housing, work eligibility, health needs, relationships, and budget checks alongside the astrological research. The result helps frame a discussion; it does not verify those practical conditions.

Create your map and open Find the Best Places for Two People.