Well, I would agree with you (and them) that MU is more of the official record keeper for Lancaster; it's just that the NWS is only going to cite their official sites for record keeping, I would imagine. For one, LNS has only been recording observations since like 1999, whereas MU I believe goes back to something like 1914?? LNS also doesn't keep any snowfall data, which is reason enough to scorn them haha. Heck, the Filtration plant near downtown Lancaster would probably serve as a better site as well. At least they have records going back to the mid 70s and track snowfall to some degree. In any case, MU would clearly have the most extensive climate record, along with the most attention to detail and record keeping. They deserve the title ha.