As a participant in a Project (Biodiversity of Phinizy Swamp Nature Park, I am aware that the boundaries created originally do not include several portions of the Park that are habitat to many species.
Even when I specify the location as a portion of Phinizy Swamp Nature Park, the boundaries apparently exclude inclusion in the Project, and there is no way for me to override that and add the submission to the project.
The result is that numerous submissions, mine and other contributors, are not included in/credited to the relevant Project. In my case, that amounts to more than fifty (50) submissions. I am aware of numerous submissions to this project by other members that are similarly excluded from the Project.
This issue results in significant statistical inaccuracies and renders projects incomplete and of limited value across the board.
Perhaps the contributor could indicate the appropriate Project conditionally, subject to Project Administration confirmation.
This seems like you are looking for a traditional project, which allows users to manually add observations to a project. You can search the forums for discussions of the various project types and potential issues with small places and collection projects.
I thought I cited specific flaws in the existing system. I want to ensure that my observations contribute to the appropriate Project!
At present I suspect that hundreds of observations are not getting included in the Biodiversity of Phinizy Swamp Nature Park Project, and the issue must exist, along with other types than boundaries, in other Projects.
I guess redrawing the boundary would resolve the problem, but why can’t user designation be a to-be-confirmed option?
Based on the way iNaturalist sets up projects, the only options are collection project (automatically add observations based on criteria like place) or traditional (users manually add observations). There isn’t a project type that lets you do both. You could perhaps make a feature request for a new project type, but currently I don’t think it is possible to have a project that can do both.
perhaps ask the admin of the project to include the missing bits.
The new bits could be a second project - with an umbrella project including both old and new areas.
My apologies–I was on my phone when reviewing this topic and I missed adding a reply when it got posted.
This came in as a feature request, but as there are two types of projects that cover the request, I moved it to General instead. @naturallywade41, the staff won’t be creating the ability to manually add observations to collection projects (it has been requested before). Collection projects are essentially saved searches and traditional projects are already a feature available where people can manually add observations to them.
Per the previous responses, the best thing to do is get the place boundary updated if it is incorrect, and ensure that your observations you expect to see in the project actually fall within the boundary and do not cross the place’s bounding box.
The issue that I am trying to point out seems to me to be a fundamental issue of data integrity of “collection” projects. What am I missing here?
In this case, the delineated physical boundary of Project Biodiversity of Phinizy Swamp Nature Park overrides the designation of the project area. Designating the observation as being in “Phinizy Swamp Nature Park” is ignored if the specified observation point does not fall within the originally defined geographical area…which, by the way, I can not display. I can tell from where the map places/defines the specific observation location that the spot determines whether the observation will be “in” or “out” of the project, but so far I have been unable to see the defined project area itself on a map.
For some observations the precise/specific location/habitat is species significant and important; but if that specificity excludes it from inclusion in the project, of what value is the project? The alternative, for those aware of the issue (if any!) is to place the observation somewhere in the known boundary rather than in its true location.
Using available iNaturalist tools, I obtained the following results (see attached images):
Within the same map area (box), when searching for my observations in Phinizy Swamp Nature Park, I am credited with 234 observations representing 200 species, but when the Biodiversity of PSNP is added as a search criterion, I am only credited with 197 observations and 167 species. All 234 and 200 SHOULD be included in the project because they are within the actual parks boundary. Thirty seven (37) of my observations representing thirty three (33) species are excluded from the project, and I am certain that other project participants are also affected by the issue. It was, in fact, the experience of another participant whom I am “following” that brought the discrepancy to my attention originally
Isn’t this an issue with how the computer assesses location for including/excluding observations? Something about “if the accuracy circle goes outside the boundaries, it’s excluded”? I think I vaguely remember this being brought up as a problem before, but I may be wrong.
This addresses the heart of my issue, and I will follow the link for more information. I am assuming in advance that my questions, such as “will adjusting the boundaries result in automatic udtaed inclusion of observations.” Thanks.
