People asking this usually want one answer and are actually asking three questions. Separating them is the most useful thing anyone can do with the subject.
Question one: is the map drawn correctly?
Yes, and this part is not really debatable. Where Venus was rising at the minute you were born is a question about the Earth's rotation and the position of a planet, both of which are known to a precision that embarrasses the rest of this subject. Two competing pieces of software given the same birth data will draw the same lines.
The errors that do creep in are boring and human: a birth time rounded to the nearest half hour, a birthplace entered as a country rather than a town, a timezone that ignores the daylight-saving rule in force that year. Every one of those is an input problem, and every one is fixable. The geometry is the most reliable thing here, and it is also the part nobody is really asking about.
Question two: do the meanings hold up?
This is where it stops being astronomy. That Venus is associated with attraction and ease, or Saturn with restriction and structure, is a convention — a long one, reasonably consistent across a couple of thousand years of practice, and still a convention. It was not derived from measurement and it does not become measurement by being old.
That does not make it useless, but it does change what kind of thing it is. You are looking at a symbolic system applied to a map, in the way a tarot spread is a symbolic system applied to a question. Read it as a set of prompts and it behaves well. Read it as a forecast and it will let you down, because it was never that.
Question three: does it predict what happens to you?
There is no body of evidence showing that living on a particular planetary line produces a particular outcome, and we are not going to pretend otherwise. Nobody has run the study. The claim is very hard to design a study around, which is a fact about the claim rather than a defence of it.
What people actually report is looser and more interesting: that a place they had a strong reaction to turned out to sit near a line whose traditional meaning matched the reaction. That is a real pattern in the anecdotes and it is also exactly what you would expect from a system with enough lines to cover the globe and enough interpretive range to fit most feelings. Both explanations are live. Neither has been settled.
So what is it accurate enough for?
Narrowing a list. If you are weighing six cities and have no way to choose, a framework that says *these two are associated with rest and these two with visibility* gives you something to react to — and your reaction is the useful part. People discover what they want by being handed a suggestion and noticing they hate it.
It is not accurate enough to be the reason you move, and treating it as such is how people end up somewhere expensive with no job and no friends and a chart that promised expansion. Use it after the visa, the money and the language, never before. The map is a tiebreaker, not a decision.