Others have already noted the ways that iNat describes how data is obscured and points are replaced. I feel like iNat does a decent job of this, but it could always be better. One recent improvement iNat has made is to include metadata with downloads from iNat itself (in response to this feature request):
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/package-metadata-with-csv-on-observations-export/31692
The terminology is here and does a good job showing how obscured locations are represented in the data imo.
I do think that any researcher who ignores coordinate uncertainty in their work does so at their own peril, and that choice is their responsibility (as are the others they make when doing their work). It’s really important to consider uncertainy for all the datasets one might work with. It is used inconsistently between datasets to be sure, but I don’t think that is a reason to ignore it. If anything, it means one should pay more attention to making the appropriate choice about how to use it in relation to whatever research they are doing.
I agree that
However, as others have noted, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the iNat data is wrong. The points are accurate to the accuracy values that are provided for them. This is no different than a geocoded observation from a natural history collection where someone went back after the fact and added a coordinate with a large accuracy radius to a specimen that had no coordinate because the specimen location on its label was “Akron, OH” or similar. No one would (should?) assume that the specimen was found at the exact center of Akron, Ohio just because the coordinates are there. The same goes for the method of “manual obscuration” that @kevinfaccenda and other users described. The true point of the observation is within the circle but not at the coordinates - the location data is still represented accurately.
One other point is that this really isn’t (at least solely) an iNat issue in my mind. iNat shares their data with GBIF, and GBIF chooses how to represent it within their scheme. They chose to use the informationWithheld field to fit into their existing scheme. I think that their description is decent:
“Information withheld Coordinate uncertainty increased to 28329m (or other similar value) at the request of the observer”
Though this text doesn’t distinguish between observer-selected and taxon-based geoprivacy as far as I know (though this doesn’t functionally make a difference).
I disagree that
As a researcher, and as I’ve noted on many other threads, I’d much rather have a greater amount of data available to me, and then filter it for my needs rather than having someone else making a blanket decision about what I (and everyone else) can and can’t use. For some applications/questions/analyses, obscured data will work just fine. For many others it won’t. Let the user decide rather than trying to impose a choice on them.