Account Settings: "Relationships" summary for projects requesting access to obscured coordinates

Coming from the CREW Annual Meeting in s Afr. A request for a user to easily check all the projects for which they have given permission for curators/managers to access data, and the level of permission granted.

At present this is only possible for Relationships between people, but in southern Africa we are recommending against this and to only trust via “trusted” Projects
However the people relationships does not include trusts of curators and managers trusted via projects. Hence the request to be able to do so for projects.

In the Account Settings toolbox please.

I think this could be explained in more detail to help clarify further. I expect that some people would just suggest checking which projects you’ve joined and viewing or editing your sharing options there. I see you’re also bringing up the point about who’s making the projects, if they’re trustworthy. I could see that being used for another separate feature request, to in some way “verify” trusted users/projects in the context of making projects. That said, I’d also expect some people to point to the fact that the sharing settings are always only optional.

In southern Africa we use projects a lot. Many users join dozens or more of projects.
“just suggest checking which projects you’ve joined and viewing or editing your sharing options there” is often not trivial if one is an active user of iNaturalist

On the User profile one can see

The request is for a similar page for Projects, showing which have a trust relationship.

It does not have to be in the user profile. On the Projects page somewhere will also be OK: e.g.
https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/user/tonyrebelo
((Although this has obviously be redesigned - at 20 projects per page, and 7 administered projects per page - to make working with lots of projects very difficult. - perhaps I should put in a request for at least 100 projects and 50 admin projects per page?))

2 Likes

That’s good to know. Well, we’ll see if anyone else has comments to add.