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.
Only staff can edit places that large, FYI.
Yeah see this feature request:
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).
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.