GeoNames Home | Postal Codes | Download / Webservice | About 

GeoNames Forum
  [Search] Search   [Recent Topics] Recent Topics   [Groups] Back to home page 
[Register] Register / 
[Login] Login 
Coordinate Best Practices for Island vs. Region/Admin/Place Entries  XML
Forum Index -> FAQ - frequently asked questions
Author Message
hannyOfSaris



Joined: 31/03/2025 09:29:57
Messages: 2
Offline

Hi GeoNames Team & Community,

I've noticed coordinate differences between GeoNames entries that seem to represent the same core geographical location but have different feature types (e.g., Island T ISL vs. Region L RGN, Admin A ADM1, or Populated Place P PPL). I've included population figures below; note how sometimes these are nearly identical even when coordinates differ.

My main question is about best practices here. I assumed that if entries refer to the same fundamental place (often containing similar populations), their primary coordinates should ideally be the same for consistency. I'm sharing examples to illustrate this and seek clarification.

Examples (Name - Type / Class Code / ID / Population / Coordinates):

Kyushu, JP
Kyūshū Chihō - Region L RGN (1857891) Pop: 13231995 Coords: 32.33546, 130.85082
Kyushu - Island T ISL (1857892) Pop: 13231995 Coords: 32.42944, 130.99099
Result: Different (Populations Match)

Shikoku, JP
Shikoku Chihō - Region L RGN (1852486) Pop: 4000000 Coords: 33.75, 133.5
Shikoku - Island T ISL (1852487) Pop: 4141955 Coords: 33.75, 133.5
Result: Coordinates Match (Populations Similar)

Hokkaido, JP
Hokkaido - Region L RGN (11257417) Pop: 5500000 Coords: 43.51669, 142.44873
Hokkaido - Island T ISL (2130038 ) Pop: 5500000 Coords: 43.43197, 142.93467
Result: Different (Populations Match)

Jeju, KR
Jeju-do - Admin A ADM1 (1846265) Pop: 678324 Coords: 33.41667, 126.5
Jejudo - Island T ISL (1846264) Pop: 621550 Coords: 33.40167, 126.54611
Result: Different (Populations Similar)

Seeing these differences (and one match), what is the intended methodology or best practice for assigning coordinates in these cases? Is it based on administrative centers, population centers, geometric centers, etc., and does this vary by feature type?

Would it be feasible or desirable to align the primary coordinates more closely when entries clearly refer to the same core geographical entity, often containing similar populations?

If aligning coordinates for such entries is considered appropriate practice, I'm happy to help identify and potentially update the ones I encounter.

Thanks for any insights!
 
Forum Index -> FAQ - frequently asked questions
Go to:   
Powered by JForum 2.1.5 © JForum Team