I’d “correct” as follows:
I didn’t say what kind of iNat option. I mentioned fields, DQA, other symbols, or buttons. I don’t know. So the idea doesn’t depend on DQA.
You keep mentioning respecting country laws and ethics. I’ve explained, there are multiple things in my comment. The bat issue is an example, not what the iNat option would be specifically based on. In my idea, it would only be identifier perception, i.e. it could in theory be applied to any species anywhere, via votes for and against. The suggested meaning was risk, e.g. pathogens, animal aggression, etc., but even that wouldn’t be in the definition. In short, no specific definition, avoids issues like defining misuse. Also, I phrased it like a helpful caution suggestion for the observer, opposite of blaming the observer.
Commenting to observers is okay, but there’s too many photos to comment on, comments aren’t always heeded/understood, and even comments could “displease” users (marking/saying anything could).
And, finally about the specific bat example. Note that I’m just correcting this as a separate fact of the matter, it’s not the definition/specific basis of the above idea:
I’m specifically referring to horseshoe and related bats, specifically in pathogen spillover zones, e.g. primarily in Asia but including additional continents. Literature for/in all those locations does note the risks. Not only that, but advised about in organizational bodies. Beyond that, I don’t know how/if it’s “enforced” per se. It’s not insensitive to mention it. Note that if there were a pathogen spillover, it doesn’t matter where, or what laws, to occur, and that the risk is high enough to be a general (global) advisory.
I didn’t say research proposals require that, I said researchers making proposals (in such areas) typically state or imply they use proper PPE doing bat sampling. At minimum, they’re aware of the advisories (having had made them themselves). Also, why shouldn’t they want to protect themselves? Separately, there’s a known issue where some researchers (in general, not only iNat) don’t use PPE (in multiple continents), while being aware of the PPE advisories. This is all documented.
“Typically require it in your part of the world.” No, I live in the US (which lacks horseshoe bats), and I’m referring primarily to Asia/Africa/Europe. See discussion section here.
“Cave tourists don’t need permission from a board.” I didn’t say they did. I meant that non-researchers observing horseshoe bats via “cave tourism” are less likely to have heard about/know PPE advisories, and so would be most relevant to educate (vs. researchers already know).
Here’s the article that mentioned iNat and bats. First sentence of the abstract: “The general guidance is, and has always been, that handling bats should be avoided, particularly by the general public.” Note that they even refer to all bat taxa globally there.
That’s all I have on that to avoid it going off topic, unless people have further comments on what iNat could do/add.