LGA to Suburb Correspondence [Clarification]

Home Forums Support Report a Bug LGA to Suburb Correspondence [Clarification]

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 0 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #25834
      AlexAlex
      Keymaster

      We rely on PSMA dataset for suburb to LGA correspondence. If you find data discrepancies in the correspondence, feel free to contact PSMA directly and advise them accordingly.

      We view LGAs as logical groupings of suburbs/localities. The LGA grouping also loosely defines the local property market boundary.

      It is possible for a suburb to be re-assigned from one council to another with new PSMA data releases. Because of this some suburbs may remain under their historical LGA for a period of time on our website. In a rare scenario when/if that happens, the local market within the logical grouping still continues to function as it was before the re-assignment. In other words, the LGA view is there to group suburbs and compare them one to another within the boundaries of the local market. Strictly speaking, the market boundary does not have to correspond to the government-issued boundaries of the LGA.

      If you are shortlisting localities/suburbs, we suggest to use the suburb ranking table directly. You don’t need to use the top-down approach where you start from LGA and then drill down to suburb data. There are markets within markets, so there will be suburbs with completely different pricing ranges to that of LGA anyway.

      Some of our customers chose to only look at LGA data and compare LGAs to each other. LGAs are not commonly compared to suburbs and vise versa. One exception is regional areas, where there is little high and medium confidence suburb data available i.e. the Northampton example. In this scenario you can substitute suburb data with LGA data.

Viewing 0 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.