🚀 go-pugleaf

I've already received two pieces of mail telling me I didn't read the
puzzle definition correctly... I guess what happened was the business of
calling cities points and every point a city confused me.  It doesn't 
make much sense saying "is it necessary for some city to be the same on
both maps" since cities are finite... so I just thought it was a typo...

In any case, here is a "common sense" solution to the GIVEN puzzle that
some point must be common between maps of both scales:

The smaller map need only be completely inside the bigger map to guarantee
that some point is common... it does not matter if the pieces are disjoint.

Call the big map A, and the small map B.  Consider a third map C which is
aligned with the smaller map the same way as B is aligned in A.  
ie.  A:B = B:C

If you were to continue this process (A:B = B:C = C:D = D:E = ...) then the
position of the new map which you insert into the smallest map will converge
to a point:  this is the common point between A and B.