opened
missinglink
username_0
heya,

I'd like to deprecate/remove https://spelunker.whosonfirst.org/id/101914319/

I think the correct record here is https://spelunker.whosonfirst.org/id/102079337/ which is at the `county` level rather than the `locality` level.

The [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Hutt) entry defines `Lower Hutt` as a City (ie. `county` in WOF) containing a bunch of Suburbs (ie. `locality` in WOF).
'Lower Hutt' shouldn't be a locality
issue
created
missinglink
username_0
Semi related (same repo at least) is https://spelunker.whosonfirst.org/id/101918677/ which is an incorrect spelling of https://spelunker.whosonfirst.org/id/101914287/ and can also be deprecated/removed.
comment
created
missinglink
username_0
One more from NZ, this locality which seems to be two places combined into one:
https://spelunker.whosonfirst.org/id/101915063/
comment
created
missinglink
username_0
Also https://spelunker.whosonfirst.org/id/101916599/ can be superseded by https://spelunker.whosonfirst.org/id/101915581/, the latter of the two being sourced from the recent LINZ locality import and better represents the peninsula.
comment
created
missinglink
username_0
I found these errors after investigating which `locality` records in NZ are not `src:geom=nz-linz`:

```
101914319|locality|whosonfirst
101915063|locality|quattroshapes
101915887|locality|quattroshapes
101916599|locality|quattroshapes
101918677|locality|quattroshapes
```
comment
created
missinglink
username_0
The last one on the list [Leithfield Beach](https://spelunker.whosonfirst.org/id/101915887/) is very similar to [Amberley Beach](https://spelunker.whosonfirst.org/id/101916487/) farther north, except "Leithfield Beach" is still "mz:is_current" whereas Amberley Beach isn't.

Was that possibly missed in this commit?
https://github.com/whosonfirst-data/whosonfirst-data-admin-nz/commit/ca5aa9f0ccebb26640bae02bd324703059b740fb#diff-820b00e6b6193fb39fb2b96954cc7b64df1a3d50a61dd25d5ff5db6f30bc31a9
comment
created
stepps00
username_1
Hmm.. thanks for these comments @username_0 

It's possible that a handful of records were missed during the working in https://github.com/whosonfirst-data/whosonfirst-data-admin-nz/pull/12. I'll pull out all locality records in NZ to figure out what issues are present and reply here.

If you see additional issues in NZ, feel free to append them to this issue.
comment
created
stepps00
username_1
So, I've exported all "current" admin records in the `whosonfirst-data-admin-nz` repo for review and can confirm that each of these five records need to be corrected:

- https://spelunker.whosonfirst.org/id/101914319
- https://spelunker.whosonfirst.org/id/101915063
- https://spelunker.whosonfirst.org/id/101915887
- https://spelunker.whosonfirst.org/id/101916599
- https://spelunker.whosonfirst.org/id/101918677

Through https://github.com/whosonfirst-data/whosonfirst-data-admin-nz/pull/12, the last four records were flagged with a `"mz:is_funky":1` property ([info on that property here](https://github.com/whosonfirst/whosonfirst-properties/blob/master/properties/mz/is_funky.json)), but _should_ have simply been flagged as not current. The first record (Lower Hutt) was not updated, but should have been, too. 

I need to QA a bit more to untangle some superseding in these cases, but I agree that changes are needed. I'll file a PR to fix and link this issue once complete. Thanks @username_0!
comment
created
missinglink
username_0
Thanks @username_1 I'm back in NZ until April now or until the pandemic eases up enough to return home, so you might see some more of these NZ issues coming in from me as I spot check like a 🥝 🇳🇿
comment
closed
stepps00
username_1
issue