Comment on a place encompassing two states

Hello,

I don’t see a better place to report this, so I want to flag this place: https://www.inaturalist.org/places/texas-and-florida (“Texas and Florida”) as completely unnecessary and computationally expensive. The place owner is a curator, so this should be able to be resolved.

Thanks,
Chris

1 Like

Only staff can edit places that large, FYI.

Yeah see this feature request:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/flag-a-place-for-curation/7474

1 Like

This topic was originally split off from that one…?

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/flag-a-place-for-curation/7474/13

Oh haha. Wonder if it would be helpful to keep all the “flagged places” in a separate thread.

How can we now it’s useless if the curator created it and probably using it? Maybe if we just message them and ask why they don’t use 2 places for each state their response will lead either to understanding why or to deleting the place, without need to flag it.

Unfortunately, deleting large places also creates a huge burden on iNat’s infrastructure because all of the observations in that place have to be reindexed - similar to when a place is created. While it would probably be a long-term benefit to remove a large redundant place, there’s no urgency to get rid of them as of yet, as long as their boundaries aren’t edited (which also triggers lots of reindexing).

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.