Monday, November 16, 2009

DOLA geocodes - strange cases

When I worked through the DOLA geocodes for the local administrative units (LGUs), there were several cases where the code lists contains outright mistakes, or even more interesting cases where the numbers don't follow the logical system otherwise used. Especially these deviations from the system would be worth some further research, these might point to some interesting things still hidden. But it seems I would only be able to find out more by getting into contact with someone who actually worked on the creation of these numbers.

What follows is the quite lengthy list of all the strange or erroneous cases. To fully get the reasons why these cases are strange better check back the old posting giving the system for the codes.

  • Amnat Charoen: The code x370403 is not used, but there is no LGU in Phana district which was abolished after the number allocation.
  • Songkhla: same for the code x901010 in Mueang district
  • Sisaket: same for the code x330914 in Rasi Salai district
  • Phayao: Subdistrict municipality Dong Chen has code 5560114 belonging to Mueang district, but it is in Phu Kamyao district. The TAO Dong Chen has the code 6560901 using the right district number.
  • Phang Nga: Phang Nga town has code 4820201 which would place it to Ko Yao district, should be the unused 4820101. The number x820203 is omitted, but no former LGU for that. TAO Kapong abolished in 2004 has no empty space in list.
  • Mae Hong Son: Mae Hong Son town has 4580201 instead of 4580101, placing it to Khun Yuam district instead of Mueang. No former LGU for omitted x580501 in Mae La Noi district.
  • Phetchabun: TAO Thung Samo (671104) is wrongly listed as a subdistrict municipality. The two subdistrict municipalities Luang Pho Khian (หลวงพ่อเขียน) and Samnak Khun Nen (สำนักขุนเณร) are missing in the table.
  • Roi Et: TAO Nong Phok (6450901) wrongly listed as a subdistrict municipality.
  • Nakhon Sawan: TAO Khao Thong has the strange code 6601059, must be typo and should mean 6601009.
  • Nong Bua Lamphu: No hole in the code numbers for TAO Na Klang abolished in 2004.
  • Nong Khai: same for TAO Si Wilai abolished in 2004
  • Ayutthaya: same for TAO Khae Ok and Bang Phra Khru abolished in 2004
  • Ubon Ratchathani: Codes in Lao Suea Kok district omit 3, 5 and 6 without reason, no former LGUs there
  • Buriram: Mueang Buriram has code 4310119 instead of the 01 like the other province capitals.
  • Maha Sarakham: in Chiang Yuen district the former sukhaphiban Chiang Yuen (5440509) comes before two TAO created before 1999 - normally the former sukhaphiban are always last.
  • Loei: Subdistrict municipality TAO Khao Kaeo (5420310) comes after the sukhaphiban, though it was a TAO before. In fact the number 6420302 is unused, which would have been the right one.
  • Sakon Nakhon: same for Khon Sawan municipality (6470816), here 6470809 is omitted which would be the correct code.
  • Kalasin: same for Huai Pho municipality (5460119), there are three omitted codes but only two former LGUs. Yang Talat municipality (5460712) however has number in between the TAO, but should come at end like the other former sukhaphiban.
  • Udon Thani: TAO Ban Dung OBT (6411113) and the town Ban Dung (5411109) should have their codes exchanged to be more logical. Also, all the LGUs in Wiang Kao district (created 2006) still have the old codes.
Also, only very few of the codes for TAO being upgraded to municipalities have been changed, almost all of these codes still start with 6 instead of 5. But this is not done systematically, e.g. in Ratchaburi Krap Yai (5700513) upgraded in 2005 and Ban Khong (5700722) in 2006 have new codes.

No comments: