That being said, perhaps something like the taxon page maps can include this in the meantime. I’ll see if it’s possible.
I trust that the filters will be added to rather than deprecated on the Explore/Observations page?
In addition to Locality resolution added - which I wholeheartedly endorse, the taxa rank filters need to be fixed.
It would also be nice to have the Observation fields and Annotations included in the filters. (and when it eventually arrives, a cutoff on the summed reputation of the identifiers).
Ok, just added a few more API parameters that will work in obs search and Identify. No UI yet, maybe never since these features are very niche, IMO. Here they are, with examples:
acc
: Boolean to filter on whether or not observations have apositional_accuracy
, e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?user_id=kueda&acc=falseacc_above
: Show observations with positional_accuracy above a given value, e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?user_id=kueda&acc_above=10000acc_below
: Show observations with positional_accuracy below a given value, e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?user_id=kueda&acc_below=3
Not quite the same, but the geoprivacy
API parameter has existed for a while. It’s not in the UI because, well, like everything you’ve requested it’s really only of interest to a tiny fraction of power users, but here’s how you edit a URL to use it:
- Obs where geoprivacy is private: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?geoprivacy=private
- Obs by a single user where geoprivacy is obscured: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?user_id=kueda&geoprivacy=obscured
- Obs by a single user where geoprivacy is obscured or private: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?user_id=reuvenm&geoprivacy=obscured_private
Searching by whether or not the coordinates were obscured because of a taxon’s conservation status (the taxon_geoprivacy
param) was something we released like last week or something, but it works pretty much the same:
- Obs where taxon geoprivacy is private: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?taxon_geoprivacy=private
- Obs by a single user where taxon geoprivacy is obscured: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?user_id=kueda&taxon_geoprivacy=obscured
- Obs by a single user where geoprivacy is obscured or private: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?user_id=reuvenm&taxon_geoprivacy=obscured_private
I should note that there’s still some work to be done here, specifically on the maps. I don’t think they’re using these new params just yet.
wow, awesome, thank you!
Excellent stuff!!! Thanks!
Wonderful, thank you! Should these be added to the URL wiki? (https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/how-to-use-inaturalists-search-urls-wiki)
If/when the maps are fixed to display properly that would be a good idea - right now I think it will just cause issues from people being confused.
One thing you may want to look into (if it is expected behaviour, then please ignore), but if I click on this link https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?geoprivacy=private
I get a very small subset of the private records, because I have a default search location set to Canada.
I’m not sure how small a default search location I could set and still have it actually apply the filter.
For me, that is only showing my own records, not anybody else’s. Which seems fine.
not for me, I see everyone’s.
Theoretically all place-based searches should exclude observations with obscuration cells or positional accuracy circles that aren’t contained by the place’s bounding box, so there’s a limit to how small a place you could use for this kind of attempt to guess the true coordinates of an obscured observation.
What is this “taxon geoprivacy”? I see it applies to 22 species. How does this differ from taxon_obscured? When does it apply? Who decides?
And why does it not apply across the taxon, but to only certain cases? (e.g. 72 out of 525 observations for Clemmys guttata)
There is no decision beyond someone with curator powers going in and setting it. It applies only to a subset of C. guttata records as most jurisdictions are set to obscured, but some curator(s) have set it to private for 3. Those being the US states of Ohio, Vermont and the Canadian province of Ontario.
Are there guidelines for when to use private vs obscured? Is this entirely at the discretion of some concerned curator? How is conflict between curators mediated?
This is the first I have heard from it, and I am on the South African Sensitive Species committee which regulates locality data access, which is in the southern African community iNat contract.
There is no written info anywhere on the use of private I am aware of. The only guidelines are the ones mentioned here : https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/change-process-to-update-obscuring-level-of-taxa/558.
There is no tracking or display of who makes a change either adding, or removing a default geoprivacy.
Basically last curator who makes a change wins.
Thanks - but there is nothing there about the “privacy” option (vs obscured) for taxa. That was entirely new to me from this thread. Certainly worthy of some guidelines.
‘Thanks - but there is nothing there about the “privacy” option (vs obscured) for taxa.’
That’s exactly what my 1st sentence says.
I’m going to close this as API parameters for this functionality have been added and the conversation has strayed a bit. Might be good to add some of these to the Search URLs wiki at https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/how-to-use-inaturalists-search-urls-wiki/63
FYI, maps are now using these additional parameters, so https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=854&taxon_id=47789&geoprivacy=open&taxon_geoprivacy=open should only show observations of that genus in San Francisco that have unobscured coordinates, e.g. not https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/3511638, which is of a threatened taxon, and not https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/13263251, which the observer has personally chosen to obscure.