When I’m identifying within a taxon, place, or user’s observations, the location is listed as “(Somewhere…)” in the location for both completely blank/missing locations and locations marked private.
I propose that the text should be different depending on whether the location is blank or private.
Suggestion 1: keep “Somewhere” for private locations, use “None” for blank locations
Suggestion 2: keep “Somewhere” for blank locations, use “Private” for private locations
Suggestion 3: use “None” for missing locations, use “Private” for private locations (don’t use “Somewhere” at all)
I would suggestion option 3: use “None” for missing locations, use “Private” for private locations (don’t use “Somewhere” at all) with the addition of using “Somewhere” to mean there’s a GPS location that does not have a name (maybe because it does not fall into any standard places).
What problem are you trying to solve? As it is, either private or missing location information means you don’t have access to that information. There is no functional difference. You may say that you could ask the observer for more information, but you can do that in either case and the probability that they respond may not have much to do with the location information being private or missing. So what’s the real issue you want to see addressed?
A lot of observers don’t know that there is a missing location - I see a lot of this with users of the the Android app. A private location has been actively chosen by the user, so it’d be a bit odd as an identifier to say ‘please add it’. The suggestion is useful for people doing bulk id.
I just updated an ollllld github issue on this very topic.
I completely agree that it’s useful to have the distinction between missing and private locations when trying to help users who may not realize they have observations with missing coordinates.
Thanks, @carrieseltzer . Should I mark your answer as the solution since you added it to the github, or leave it open to allow votes as a measure of interest?
