I notice the
original_source field is populated for about 70% of rows but blank for the rest, with no pattern suggesting which sources are missing. Without source attribution for all rows, it's impossible to assess data provenance systematically. Should we either backfill the sources or disclose that provenance is incomplete?Can someone confirm whether overlapping periods in the dataset represent updates or true duplicates?
The Oslo baseline appears to use a different definition than the other Scandinavian cities, which means the growth rates aren't directly comparable without adjustment. Rather than assume they're measuring the same thing, should we add a footnote explaining the definitional difference, or should we restate one series to match the other's methodology?
raised this on the other chart too, same a source revision.