Amount of "Unknown" records is decreasing

How exactly do you do that? I would like to do the same for my area but can’t figure it out.

You may find that you can have a similar experience in an easier way by IDing in your county, then moving on to a neighbouring one, and so on.


Yes, I was doing that, but it means I have to take large jumps in amount of observations. This way I could move in smaller increments.


I looked for a simple latitude close to where your last observation was and put a radius of 100 on it. In this case I used lat=48.0 and long=-122.50 which coincides to a place on Whidbey Island. Try this if you wish:
There are 2,361 unknowns.

This is just across the pond from where I live.

If you find yourself going too far east as you expand your radius, I tend to use a corridor for identifications from northern California along a wide strip to almost the west of Alaska - the Pacific Northwest Coast zone. There is a lot of similarities in species throughout this:



1 Like

Yeah, the trick with the iNat search tool is that a lot of advanced commands are not available in the search interface, so that you have to manually “code” them in the url.

Looks like bobmcd answered your question, so have fun!