Thanks for the link and explanations. After a quick look, it seems the majority of the 110 taxa listed there are, indeed, rare plants, but quite a few are not. In fact a surprising number on that list do not in any way warrant geo-privacy as a taxon. Is that a list of default-obscured taxa, or does it include some taxa for which the photographer(s) had reasons of their own to obscure a particular site?
1 Like
This list should only include species auto obscured. No record or species should be there because of a user decision.
As noted above, some are listed due to erroneous identifications. For example Yellow Trout Lily due to this misidentification https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/10621836 which was misidentified as a rare west coast plant.
I know of no way to extract a list of species in an area and their entered status. Nor is there any requirement why seemingly unthreatened species are obscured be documented as to why.
1 Like
A while ago I did some thinking about what default obscuration criteria based on NatureServe ranks might look like, and have been debating whether to share them here. I offer them simply as a dart board, acknowledging that they might not work optimally in all national or subnational jurisdictions:
- Special Interest Taxa defined: Orchidaceae, Cactaceae, carnivorous plants, reptiles and amphibians, lepidopterans, and any other groups identified by the national or subnational unit as having high collection and/or visitation interest.
- Obscured by default:
- All GX, GH, G1, and G2 taxa
- All G3 Special Interest Taxa
- All G3 taxa that are also IUCN Near-Threatened +
- Within a nation, all NX-N3 Special Interest Taxa and NX-N3 nationally protected taxa (ESA listed or candidate, for example)
- Within a subnation, all SX-S3 Special Interest Taxa and SX-S3 subnationally protected taxa
- Within a nation or subnation, any other taxa specifically identified by the national or subnational unit as being threatened by human visitation (these should have their ranks re-assessed in that light).
- Open by default:
- All other taxa, except for those already currently obscured, which should be flagged and discussed first.
This specifically excludes things like G4-G5 S1 taxa that are not Special Interest or legally protected, and do not otherwise attract significant human visitation. I can certainly see an argument that range-edge things like this should be assumed to have extra biological significance, and should maybe be obscured by default. But if no one cares about visiting it (already accounted for in the above criteria), then why hide what could be very useful data for conservation activity?
In general, for taxa that are vulnerable, but without significant threats attributable to human visitation, obscuration adds a barrier to the use of iNaturalist data by scientists, conservationist, and land managers to identify and protect existing and newly discovered locations of such taxa.
Because the “culture” of iNaturalist has always been about sharing experiences and information about encounters with nature, I think there has been an implied burden of proof for why something should automatically be obscured. Not to say that there isn’t or shouldn’t be a default beyond which obscuration is automatic until successfully argued otherwise. Just that obscuration isn’t as much of an “automatic” thought in iNat culture as in other professional circles. From where I sit, I definitely see both sides.
That said, on iNat I have much more frequently encountered obscured things that should not be, rather than the reverse situation. So I tend to lean toward questioning obscuration here to make sure it is really justified.
3 Likes
A couple of questions/comments.
Can you clarify if the use of the word protected was intentional. Protection can only be granted to a species by a legislative or governmental act. IUCN, NatureServe etc offer no protection to s species, they are merely directional information. Is your suggestion that only legislatively listed species be obscured?
There are some nations (Baltics and Nordics come to mind but there may be others) that have official legislative lists of species whose locations can not be revealed by anyone. In some cases these species may have ‘better’ ranks than suggested above, or not even be evaluated. I am sure someone will point out inaturalist is based in California, not Tallinn so has no requirement to follow that law, but the site should do so, and a category for such legally required listings should be added.
There are many locations around the world that will not have a local NatureServe or Red List etc. In particular if the site wants to grow use in these areas, some means to evaluate what needs to be obscured needs establishing. And it will be tougher due to less knowledge and expertise in those areas among site members.
1 Like
Thank you! That definitely gives us a start. I would lobby for more protection for taxa at risk at the subnational level. For example, I have a hard time understanding why we wouldn’t default obscure, at the very least, all currently state-listed Endangered taxa, then proceed stepwise to open those in that category that are clearly safe for openness.
I’d like to try a few general assertions, and I invite everyone to educate me as required. I’m repeating some themes that Chris Cheatle has been asserting.
- We want location information to be open, to the extent it helps further the causes of science and conservation.
- We want location information to be obscured, to the extent it protects the goal of conservation.
- The two principles, above, outweigh any considerations that are based purely on a status quo or the culture of INat.
- If we have to choose between open and obscured, and the choice is not clear, we should err on the side of conservation.
- We really do have only two choices, for any of the general categories of “listed” taxa: default to open or default to obscure.
- Default to open violates concepts/principles expressed as 1-4 above, because default to open cannot assure, for many taxa, that the open condition furthers the causes of science and conservation. It only does that sometimes, and we don’t know how often that is. Expressed conversely, default to open fails to obscure locations for many taxa that we would obscure, were we to do the requisite research. And if we don’t adopt statement 3, we are effectively saying that the status quo and culture of INat is more important than conservation.
Minor nitpicking, but I would personqally phrase this as ‘to be available’, available and open are not the same thing.
Thanks for making the distinction. What exactly is the difference?
I suggested in the FaceBook thread, but neglected to carry it here, that there could be a protocol, whereby a taxon could enjoy general geo-privacy, but that qualified individuals would have access. Ideally, this would be on a “need to know” basis for qualified users other than curators. I don’t know if such a protocol would introduce too much of a burden on administrators, or which administrators would take on the task, but it seems to me preferable to a system that leaves at threat, via published location, an unknown number of taxa.
Open meaning every person who opens the observation sees the details. As you noted, available meaning there is some hopefully not too difficult process for people who have a legitimate need to know to 5 decimal places exactly where something is can get access to the data.
I dont have a Facebook account so cant comment on any thread or discussion there.
Yes, I intended legal protection here, as another criterion for when an NX-N3 or SX-S3 taxon would be obscured by default. If an N4-N5 or S4-S5 taxon is legally protected by its jurisdiction, it would not be obscured by default (but still could be through flagging and discussion). As an example in my state, ancient bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva) is S3 but needs updating to S4, and is a legally protected species. There is no point to obscuring its locations, which are either already widely known to the public, or are very remote and inaccessible. Any ongoing threat to it is related to climate change or ski resort development, not to human visitation.
No, just as a criterion for when an NX-N3 or SX-S3 taxon should be obscured by default.
If a jurisdiction specifically legislates the geoprivacy of a taxon, I have no problem with respecting that by setting obscured taxon geoprivacy within that jurisdiction, regardless of any other criteria, and regardless of whether obscuration is really helpful or not. However, it should be made clear to those who are subject to the law in that jurisdiction (citizens or visitors) that they also have an obligation to manually obscure any such observations that they post, since iNat cannot guarantee that the site will always do it for them.
Just to be clear, though, in the context of my post, I was only talking about legal protection as one of several criteria for when an NX-N3 or SX-S3 taxon should be obscured by default.
I have no issue with any of those assertions, with the understanding that they apply to choosing initial blanket criteria for when to obscure taxa by default within a jurisdiction. Discussion and resolution of geoprivacy for an individual taxon would always be a separate option and process, and such resolution should take precedence over any blanket criteria. The difficulty will be determining which taxa have already been individually discussed and resolved, prior to applying any blanket criteria. That would involve visiting the past and current curation flags on each of the taxa proposed to be affected.
1 Like
I think I am still having problems understanding the proposal, in both cases it says Nx-N3 protected and Sx-S3 protected, so I interpret that as meaning only species on either the Endangered Species Act or any state equivalent law (to use the US examples), not that the legal protection criteria only applies to N3/S3.
Sorry, yes, I mis-stated my own proposal in my reply 
. I have edited to say SX-S3 and NX-N3 instead of just S3 and N3.
So to clarify (I hope), SX-S3 and NX-N3 taxa would not be obscured by default, unless they also meet at least one of the following additional criteria:
- they are legally protected by that jurisdiction
- they are in a group of “Special Interest Taxa”
- they are GX-G2
- they are G3 and also IUCN Near-Threatened or higher concern
EDIT: I should also add:
- they are
Speaking as an “outsider”, I just do not see how obscuring is a problem except to those who want to collect specimens. Isn’t The default obscuring range is *2x2km or there about (depending on latitude)? If so, how does that impede research, if you do not need to collect the specimen?
I do realize there are some places, like the SF Bay Area, where climate zones and habitats vary widely over a few miles. But, what’s the fuss? Why is it important to know a species was “here”, rather than 1 km away that is so important if you are not trying to trap it?
*updated to acknowledge correction of 22x22 km
1 Like
22x22 Km roughly, not 2x2
1 Like
I’m wondering, myself, about what kinds of conservation projects or research or protective measure is being facilitated by INat users generally having precise location information on rare species. A problem, here in NJ, is that government authorities often don’t have an opportunity to protect a rare species population unless someone submits an application for a development. Does INat supply or potentially supply a remedial mechanism for that situation?
Or are there some other examples of how INat facilitates research or conservation that would otherwise not be obtainable via standard professional methods?
There are plenty of people who are fully content to see, snap a few photos and leave it for the next person to enjoy. I’d even go so far as to say that represents a solid majority of the inat community.
The problem is the risks from the minority with less noble objectives. And to a lesser extent the risks and possible damage from the traffic even of well intentioned folks.
1 Like
I meant to follow up on this. If this is the case, what exactly are the criteria that are being used? Also, does this practice vary state by state or region by region?
Criteria for what, the ranking given within a jurisdiction or something on inat
I mean which ranks are being used. SX, SH, S1, S2, S3. Or do different states/regions use different ranks?
Sorry if I’m not making myself clear. As I understand, individual state Natural Heritage Programs provide conservation ranks for their respective states. NatureServe presumably adopts those subnational ranks. Now, INat curators have the opportunity to refer to those ranks when deciding what to obscure. My question is, which of those ranks do they typically use for that particular process? Or, are my assumptions in need of correction?
It used to be the policy that anything graded near threatened or worse was obscured within the jurisdiction it was so classified .
https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide#geoprivacy
However practice has developed that in reality curators can change the obscuring of any species they wish. They are supposed to solicit feedback from the community but this is not consistent. Because any curator may change anything there is no consistent approach, communication or documentation of the decisions.