Search for Tabebuia rosea on the map with this URL:
At the same zoom level, Tabebuia rosea is shown in Malaysia but not in La Réunion and Mauritius:
Clicking on “Redo search in map” confirms there are results in La Réunion and Mauritius (but it is still not shown on the map, at the same zoom level):
I believe by default casual records which all the ones from those locations are do not appear on the maps.
In fact, there isn’t a way to show both captive/casual and wild on the map at once (selecting one unselects the other), which seems weird to me honestly. What if I want to see the locations of, say, all Ginkgo biloba, whether they’re planted or not? I understand why that’s not the default (that’s reasonable) but why make us choose. If I’m looking for Bartheletia paradoxa, then knowing where all the G. biloba are in one map would be very useful, since whether they’re planted is irrelevant for this (same is probably true of many other pathogen / plant combinations).
in the URL, it looks like you can just set captive=any, and it will pull back both. for example: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?captive=any&place_id=67478&taxon_id=209270&verifiable=any
just to clarify, i think what you’re saying is true, but in this case it’s the captive (not wild) that seems to be causing things not to appear on the map.
I’m not sure exactly how it works. If a record is casual due to having no date for example, is it mapped?
yes, i think so. see https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=7332&taxon_id=35328&verifiable=any.
Note that in my screenshot after “Redo seach is map” there is nothing on the map but there is a list with several observations on the right.
This inconsistency is a bug. (No need to check if it is wild or casual, at this level).
this seems to have been discussed over at https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/explore-map-doesnt-show-both-wild-and-non-wild-points-at-the-same-time/556, and it looks like an issue was created to address a secondary perceived issue, but then the original issue seems to have been left in limbo. so it might be best to finish things off in that first discussion. @tiwane and others there may be interested in revisiting it.
That discussion was about the Taxon page.
Here it is about the Search page.
(It is unlikely related. Both need an analysis).
Thanks for cross-checking.
ok. you’re right. the (revised) title of that discussion and the first couple of responses threw me off. the primary issue there, then, was resolved (reframed as not actually an issue outside of the discussion), but the secondary issue there was left in limbo. that secondary issue is the same as what’s being discussed here. so it still may be useful to merge two related parts of the two topics one way or another.