Eerm, so the mind and digits can get up to all sorts of funny things when not diligently supervised. Recently mine have strayed in such a way as to produce this.
My main thought harked back to this chain of comments:
As uMap facilitates discrete links it is possible to give the modern reference number (displayed by either hovering over or, obviously, clicking on the link) while leaving the PTS references completely intact [muchos evil genius laughter 
]. uMap also answers a number of other points raised in the creating a map thread, but of course has its limitations (one being that selected locations are not highlighted - apparently the feature is in the pipeline) and idiosyncrasies, too. On balance I reckon its positives outweigh its negatives, especially so for the estimation of its superior power to invite folk directly to the suttas.
If it is wanted (it can be cleaned up as per the below and) it is there for the taking.
Irrespectively, paying closer attention to the map (well, at least some parts of it) within the process, some details where highlighted to me:
- There seems a little inconsistency in a few of the entries with regards to the way in which the DPPN has been edited for SC. Eg. the description for Āpaṇa has had references to ThagA.ii.47 and MA.ii.586 removed, however, there are other places where similar material is given: Bārānasī; Vedisa; Gayāsīsa; Sākya & Dakkhiṇāpatha.
There a bunch of tiny amendments & corrections that could be made
Aggāḷave Cetiya: “Vaṅgīsa Sutta” → “Nigrodhakappa [Vaṅgīsa]”
Andhavana: “Snp5” → “SN5”
Añjanavana: exploration of the basis for the description to this entry claiming the Jarā Sutta (Snp4.6) was preached here shows that the information comes from Jātaka 68 (The Jataka, Volume I: Book I.--Ekanipāta: No. 68. Sāketa-Jātaka). As such the detail was added to the description (“Here were preached the Sāketa Sutta and (according to Jātaka 68) the Jarā Sutta”) in the uMap version.
Bhaddiya: “Vin.ii.242” → “Vin.i.242”
Bārānasī: In SC’s DPPN the entry ends mid sentance.
Campā: “Vin.i.3121” → “Vin.i.312”; “the Vinaya Piṭaka Vin.i.312ff. Vin.ii.307” → " the Vinaya Pitaka (Vin.i.312ff; see also Vin.ii.307)"
Dakkhiṇāpatha: “Dharana” → “Dhovana”
Goyogapilakkha: needs to be moved over a little to Isipatana.
Iccānaṅgala: “MN.ii.146” → “MN.ii.196”
Indapatta: “the Buddhas razor” → “the Buddha’s razor”
Isipatana: “SN.384” → “SN.iv.384”
Kammāsadhamma: “MN.ii.26” → “MN.ii.261”
Kapilavatthu: “Ud.25 [ud3.3]” → delete (the story of ud.3.3 paralels the one referenced in the entry description, but is set in different locations)
Kāsi: “Vin.i.28l” → “Vin.i.281”
Kīṭāgiri: “Vin.iii.179” → “Vin.ii.179”
Licchavī: “AN.iii.219” → “AN.iii.239”
Nāḷandā: “SN.ii.311–323” → “SN.iv.311–323”
Pālileyya: “MN.i.320” → “MN.iii.152”
Vesāli: no Ratana sutta appears to have been preached here.
Veḷukaṇḍa: This entry appears to be completely mistaken and probably ought to be removed! It gives as it’s reference an7.52, which makes no mention of Veḷukaṇḍa - an7.52 has almost certainly been mistaken with an6.37 (set in Savatthi).
Ṭaṅkitamañca: “SN.i.206” → “SN.i.207”
- How fortunate I am that “it is growth in the Noble One’s Discipline when one sees one’s transgression as such, makes amends” as I evidently made a blunder in plotting the Verañjā to Benares route. First of all, I didn’t notice that Payāga was already on the map (:-\) so plotted it a second time and this threw everything else out of whack. When taking Allahabad as the location for Payāga the route described in bhikkhu pārājika 1 seems to naturally fall much further north east as suggested in the uMap (this replotting of the Verañjā to Benares route also seems to fit a lot better with the highway between Madhurā and Verañjā mentioned in AN4.53).
- Then a more fruity proposition. Returning to my thoughts above in post #74, I think I was probably wrong there, too, but have come up with an idea that might be even more wrong, but I fearlessly go where the evidence suggests I should (we’ll set aside the fact that I might be looking at the evidence upside down).
- an8.30 clearly indicates that Pācīnavaṁsadāya is in Cetiya.
- From kd10 we can feel fairly confident that Bālakaloṇaka, Pācīnavaṁsadāya and Pārileyyaka lie inbetween Kosambī and Sāvatthī. That is to say that Pācīnavaṁsadāya is north of Kosambī.
- (as suggested in the uMap) kd22 indicates that Sahajāti is lies by a river (the most likely candidate being that Yamuna) as “the monks who were Vajjis of Vesālī, taking these requisites of recluses, went in a boat upstream to Sahājati” and that it falls somewhere on the Verañjā to Benares route. The suttas given in the DPPN description for Sahājati positively identify it as being in Cetiya.
- Returning to Bhikkhu Pācittiyā 51 story considered in post #74, whereas I previously thought “touring for alms in the Cetiya country, set out for Bhaddavatikā” might conceivably be understood as saying the Buddha started in Cetiya and then left it for Bhaddavatika, I’m now inclined to think that by “touring for alms in the Cetiya country” it is meant that the whole narrative is set in Cetiya, including when it reaches Kosambī.
- Naturally, I know that Kosambī is taken as the capital of Vamsa, but I’m wondering if there’s any possibility that Cetiya and Vamsa was territories in flux over the course of the Buddha’s life and that they may have overlapped.
- Remotely reasonable?
If you think any of the alterations suggested in the uMap are worth transferring to the Google map, of course, I’d be happy to.