A person can know of a distant city without having visited it. Travelers, independent accounts, commerce, and other public evidence may together establish its existence.
The case illustrates how report-based certainty is possible even where direct personal perception is absent. Widely established past events can be known similarly, although some details may remain contested or require separate inquiry.
The crucial distinction is between establishing the reported fact and accepting every story told about it. Knowing that a city exists does not imply that every claim about the city is true. Tawātur must be assessed in relation to the precise proposition for which certainty is claimed.