GeoNames Forum

After looking at:
http://download.geonames.org/export/dump/admin1Codes.txt

It's apparent that quite a few countries have more than one ADM1 codes corresponding to an admin division of the same name. In some cases, like India, it's apparent that this is causing problems because there isn't really two different admin1s.

Is there a plan to do any type of cleanup on these, or should there be an expecation that this type of data inconsistency will continue to exist?

EDIT: edited to add a description to my uploaded file.

The file admin1Codes.txt includes obsolete admin1 codes and therefore the names cannot be unique. This is a feature not a bug

The file admin1CodesASCII.txt contains the current codes only.

Best

Marc

Marc, thanks for the quick reply. Your explanation makes sense, but I don't understand the current behavior. Using IN as an example:
admin1Codes.txt contains:
IN.15 Madhya Pradesh
IN.27 Uttar Pradesh
IN.35 Madhya Pradesh
IN.36 Uttar Pradesh

admin1CodesASCII.txt contains:
IN.35 Madhya Pradesh State of Madhya Pradesh 1264542
IN.36 Uttar Pradesh State of Uttar Pradesh 1253626

This implies that 15 and 27 are deprecated. (so far so good)
The problem is that all the entries I'm finding with these deprecated values are relatively new, not old:
Code:

 6930973, 'Chuna Bhatti', 'R', 'RD', 'IN', '', '15', '', '', '', 0, '2009-02-27'
 6940501, 'Bandhavgarh National Park', 'L', 'PRK', 'IN', '', '15', '', '', '', 0, '2009-04-07'
 6941965, 'Shivapuri', 'P', 'PPL', 'IN', '', '15', '', '', '', 0, '2009-06-09'
 7274695, 'Kuchwada', 'P', 'PPL', 'IN', '', '15', '', '', '', 0, '2010-02-12'
 7279595, 'Pithampur', 'P', 'PPL', 'IN', '', '15', '', '', '', 68051, '2010-02-19'
 7279752, 'Mandideep', 'P', 'PPL', 'IN', '', '15', '', '', '', 39898, '2010-02-22'
 7279754, 'Singrauli', 'P', 'PPL', 'IN', '', '15', '', '', '', 185580, '2010-02-22'
 6941946, 'Govind Pashu Vihar Wildlife Sanctuary', 'L', 'RESW', 'IN', '', '27', '', '', '', 0, '2009-06-09'
 6941979, 'Jim Corbett National Park', 'L', 'PRK', 'IN', '', '27', '', '', '', 0, '2009-06-09'
 6942188, 'Bhairav Kund', 'T', 'MT', 'IN', '', '27', '', '', '', 0, '2009-06-10'
 6949605, 'Sector 53, Noida', 'S', 'HSE', 'IN', '', '27', '', '', '', 0, '2009-09-16'
 6954178, 'Mukteshwar', 'P', 'PPL', 'IN', '', '27', '', '', '', 0, '2009-10-09'
 6954188, 'Dehradun', 'P', 'PPL', 'IN', '', '27', '', '', '', 0, '2009-10-09'
 6954929, 'Greater Noida', 'P', 'PPL', 'IN', '', '27', '', '', '', 0, '2009-12-11'
 6955518, 'Greater Noida', 'P', 'PPL', 'IN', '', '27', '', '', '', 0, '2009-10-21'
 7117985, 'Banbasa', 'P', 'PPL', 'IN', '', '27', '', '', '', 7138, '2010-01-28'
 7279602, 'Gautam Budh Nagar', 'P', 'PPL', 'IN', '', '27', '', '', '', 0, '2010-02-19'
 7279746, 'Noida', 'P', 'PPL', 'IN', '', '27', '', '', '', 293908, '2010-02-22'

Perhaps the removal of these deprecated codes was not accompanied by some type of cleanup process?
I've tried manually editing a few of the entries via the UI, but to no avail. For example, for Noida, the UI is properly showing an ADM1 of Uttar Pradesh, despite the fact that my recent download shows it having an ADM1 of 27.

your download is behind the web interface. The cleanup you mention run some days ago. This means the UI has the code 36 for Noida but your download has the code 27. The cleanup was a batch process and did not update the history and the daily modification.

Marc