New Delhi listed as type administrative_area_level_2 instead of type locality?

[James]

Most entities generally known as cities come back in the results as
type 'locality', as described in the v3 documentation on address
component types. However, a search for the following address, for
example...

A 5/2 vasant vihar
new delhi 110057 india

...returns New Delhi as type 'administrative_area_level_2'. Since
there is probably a consensus that New Delhi is a city by any
definition, should it not be listed as a locality? The documentation
uses the term 'civil entity' for administrative areas, which is
probably vague by necessity, but I was really hoping for some
generalized way to know the difference between a 'locality' and
'administrative_area_level_#', especially as it applies to what would
generally be considered a city. What is the determining factor when
deciding which type to return for a city? And it seems like a result
may contain both a locality and administrative_area_level_2, so I
can't use the nonexistence of one or the other to determine what is
the city. Any suggestions, please?

Thanks.

[pamela (Google Employee)]

Hi James-

"New Delhi" is apparently also a district, and that address must be
located in it.

The problem I see with that geocode is that it does not list "Vasant
Vihar" in the address components - that looks like it should be tagged
locality. We're looking into that.

- pamela

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 6:39 AM, James<jkma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Most entities generally known as cities come back in the results as
> type 'locality', as described in the v3 documentation on address
> component types. However, a search for the following address, for
> example...
>
> A 5/2 vasant vihar
> new delhi 110057 india
>
> ...returns New Delhi as type 'administrative_area_level_2'. Since

>a there is probably a consensus that New Delhi is a city by any