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
As it turns out, our mapping tables include the only land-area which is not part of a municipality ("Staatswald Galm", BFSNr: 2391) and five "Kommunanzen", which belong to more than one municipality. Two of the latter still exist.
I don't think that's necessarily wrong, it's just something to be aware of.
Possibly we should mention it in the documentation.
E.g. in the downloaded BFS data (load_bfs_mun_list()) these areas do not appear among the municipalities.
As it turns out, our mapping tables include the only land-area which is not part of a municipality ("Staatswald Galm", BFSNr: 2391) and five "Kommunanzen", which belong to more than one municipality. Two of the latter still exist.
I don't think that's necessarily wrong, it's just something to be aware of.
Possibly we should mention it in the documentation.
E.g. in the downloaded BFS data (
load_bfs_mun_list()
) these areas do not appear among the municipalities.More details in https://github.com/cynkra/munch/blob/f-31-tests/tests/testthat/test-external-consistency.R
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: