Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:10:56 -0400 From: =?UTF-8?B?RGF2aWQgUGF0dGUg4oKv?= <dpatte@relativedata.com> Message-ID: <55AC74D0.3070105@relativedata.com> | Is the core city in a region always the most populous city in the tz region? Generally, as best we can determine it (where "city" includes the metropolitan area surrounding what is technically the city, in cases where that is appropriate.) | And what is done if a smaller city's population overtakes the named | city? Is the zone renamed? It could be - but that is likely to happen only if the "overtakes" is dramatic, and is likely to remain that way (and definitely not if in order to obtain that result the numbers need to be fudged - such as excluding half of what most people would consider to be the population of one of the cities based upon some bureaucratic mumbo jumbo). If it does happen, the old name is retained (as a Link) of course, so anyone used to it can continue using the earlier name. | Also, since historical data (pre-1970) is now maintained only for the | named city in a region, does it not make sense to use the population as | of 1970, since the historical records actually affected more people at | that time? I can't begin to imagine the connection between that (first) "since" and the conclusion suggested, nor do I see how the second reason given is either related, or even correct. The populations of the various cities are considered as of the time that the zone is created (it is entirely possible a new city could be built, and given a new set of timezone rules, and hence a new timezone, where considering populations of nearby villages from 1970 would be nonsensical). For most of our zones the decision was made closer to 1970, than to now of course. kre