<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Latest posts for the topic "Differences Between NGA data and GeoNames data"]]></title>
		<link>http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/4.page</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Latest messages posted in the topic "Differences Between NGA data and GeoNames data"]]></description>
		<generator>JForum - http://www.jforum.net</generator>
			<item>
				<title>Differences Between NGA data and GeoNames data</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Hello,

I just came across your website and am intrigued. I've been using a commercial source for worldwide cities data, but have been looking elsewhere recently. I spent the entire day analyzing the NGA data and now just spent some time looking at some of your individual country files here at GeoNames. Before I investigate further, I have a question I'm hoping one of you can answer..

Please forgive if this has been asked already. I did a search for 'Kingdom" but didn't see the topic I'm interested in discussing..

I downloaded the GB.ZIP file and then deleted all listings with a code other than 'P', i.e. I wanted to keep only populated places. I then noted that the total number of listings remaining (15,709) was considerably less than the UK data from the NGA site (17,275 listings after I'd done the same trimming of their data, i.e. by only keeping listings with FC=P).

Can you explain the difference here?

Thanks,
Kazzlo]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/1184.page#5076</guid>
				<link>http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/1184.page#5076</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:08:34]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ kazzlo]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:Differences Between NGA data and GeoNames data</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ I am also interested in this]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/1184.page#5108</guid>
				<link>http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/1184.page#5108</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Wed, 24 Dec 2008 19:10:51]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ SEO]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:Differences Between NGA data and GeoNames data</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Kazzlo

The NGA database has less than 15000 populated places. What you have been counting are not the populated places but the alternate names. Some places have more than one name. <b>Walberswick</b> for instance is listed nine times in nga:
http://www.geonames.org/2634907/walberswick.html
(nga ufi = -2610762)
In GeoNames it is listed once with the alternate names in the alternate name table.

NGA is therefore 'considerably' smaller than GeoNames.

Best

Marc]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/1184.page#5207</guid>
				<link>http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/1184.page#5207</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:27:39]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ marc]]></author>
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>