I have found it is a good practice to plot locations for the people you are researching, especially if you are sifting through somebody's undocumented tree. Like when you are trying to improve a profile on wikitree, for example. Sometimes you will realize that the data doesn't fit. While people did move around even before the locomotive and the westward expansion, sometimes there will be two people with similar names and ages in different towns in say, Massachusetts, who have gotten confused with each other. Why are they in born on one side of the state, and then getting married on the other? Can you plot a migration, or has someone just made a leap based on similar names?
Original research from primary and secondary sources is always preferable to those undocumented trees. But when you see someone from 1700s getting married in North Carolina and dying in Maine, put a pin in that. Do you have the right Jane Doe? Go back to the sources you are sure of, and look at each document. The decennial censuses are a big help because they mention locations of birth for the children (1850 and after), so you can plot the migrations. But generations earlier, when the census is not helpful, look at the birth and death records in the towns you know the parents lived. Sometimes cousins with the same names are confused, A map is sometimes your best genealogical tool to figure out who was who.