Ah yes. The service was recently updated to set limits on the radius range depending on your subscription level. Glad it’s working for you now on the upgraded plan.

Ok it turns out I just had to simply purchase a subscription to have access to responses further away - happy to pay for it as it’s extremely helpful for this! 😃

*This is applicable when using just the ‘Cities’ option, as there is not a minimum radius. When using ‘Cities near location’, i cannot go beyond the 100 radius, however when using ‘Cities’ a few months ago it was all fine.

Hi and thanks for your response!
It’s indeed for Lake Albert. The idea of this is because we’re using distance from a +100,000 city as a general remoteness proxy, and this worked previously a few months ago - we even got nearest +100,000 cities for locations in the Antarctic.

Specifically for Lake Albert (and also any of the other locations I am trying to use) are as follows:
{2 items
"data":[0 items
]
“metadata”:{2 items
"currentOffset":0
"totalCount":0
}
}

It’s just confusing as it seemed to work perfectly as intended a few months ago but I’m just running into some trouble now.

I will also be switching Wikidata syncing back on in the next few days. This will likely affect your query further (in one way or another).

Hi. According to Google Maps, those coordinates are for a location in the middle of Lake Abert. Google Maps appears to show only a smattering of small towns in this area. Lowering the minPopulation or increasing the radius (it defaults to 100) does begin to show results. The reason why the results may be different now than a few months ago probably has to do with population updates that took place since then (meaning updates from Wikidata). What specific results were you getting previously?