<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Latest posts for the topic "Turkish Lat/Lons"]]></title>
		<link>http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/7.page</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Latest messages posted in the topic "Turkish Lat/Lons"]]></description>
		<generator>JForum - http://www.jforum.net</generator>
			<item>
				<title>Turkish Lat/Lons</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ These appear highly inaccurate or something weird is going on.  Search for Istanbul and see all the postal codes in Istanbul province (Istanbul = Adm1).  I haven't found a single one yet that's actually in the Istanbul province.  This leads me to believe there's some serious data problem here, either with the adm columns or the lat/lons.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/2548.page#9392</guid>
				<link>http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/2548.page#9392</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:13:09]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ rlevering]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:Turkish Lat/Lons</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ I will add a warning to the readme that the lat/lng are far from perfect. At the moment I don't see how they could be improved with the data available.

Marc]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/2548.page#9395</guid>
				<link>http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/2548.page#9395</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:41:45]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ marc]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:Turkish Lat/Lons</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Yeah, I'd go so far as to say they are flat out wrong.

Though, I guess they are all within Turkey of the ones I've checked.  I guess that's something :).

So you're sure there isn't some import problem, the underlying data is like this?]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/2548.page#9464</guid>
				<link>http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/2548.page#9464</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:55:47]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ rlevering]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:Turkish Lat/Lons</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ there is no single 'underlying' data set. It is a combination of different datasets and the available data does not allow for better matching.

Marc]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/2548.page#9465</guid>
				<link>http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/2548.page#9465</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 21 Mar 2011 06:56:39]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ marc]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:Turkish Lat/Lons</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ I don't think there's an accuracy problem in this data set, as all 51,193 points are in Turkey. Of 28 locations in Istanbul, 2 (Anadolufeneri Köyü and İmrendere Köyü) are actually have correct coordinates. 

I believe something got mixed and now we see some random, but still in Turkey, coordinates. Is there a way to go down to the source and fix this?]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/2548.page#19276</guid>
				<link>http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/2548.page#19276</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:44:33]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ onur]]></author>
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>