City totals are not enough when expansion happens district by district

A city total hides shape

Two restaurant brands can have the same number of branches in a city and still have completely different footprints. One may be concentrated in a small cluster while the other is spread across high-demand districts. A city count alone cannot show that difference.

Local context changes the question

Expansion work usually needs a more specific view: which districts already have strong category presence, where competitors are clustered, which neighborhoods have low branch density, and whether a brand already serves nearby demand from an adjacent area.

Coverage should be navigable

Useful coverage connects the national view to city, district, coordinates, brands, branches, and menus. That allows a team to start broad and then narrow the question without losing context.

Treat the map as evidence, not decoration

A map is valuable when every point represents a real branch observation and can be traced back to its source. The visual should help a team form a hypothesis, while the underlying records support the decision.