You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
for the record above I'd expect the WOF record to have a population value of 7556900
I'm not sure about the scale of the problem, I found this when running our acceptance test suite and found that it affects searches for: brooklyn, london, portland, paris etc.
we are using the population data in pelias to score more populous places higher in the results (eg London UK vs. London ON) so it's important that we can get this fixed ASAP.
thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
copied from #212
some geonames imports/concordances are missing the associated population metadata.
eg:
for the record above I'd expect the WOF record to have a population value of
7556900
I'm not sure about the scale of the problem, I found this when running our acceptance test suite and found that it affects searches for: brooklyn, london, portland, paris etc.
we are using the population data in pelias to score more populous places higher in the results (eg London UK vs. London ON) so it's important that we can get this fixed ASAP.
thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: