While I appreciate that generalising locations of observations of Vulnerable species (IUCN listed) is a good idea for their protection, this can confound project data, when it pushes an occurrence outside the area of a geographically bound project.
Let me give you a more specific example. I recently observed a Western Blue Groper at Port Noarlunga in South Australia. This is a very significant sighting, but it doesn’t appear in the project “Port Noarlunga, South Australia” as the record has not only been generalised outside of the project area, it’s been placed on land, and it’s a marine species.
It strikes me that a rule should be introduced to keep generalised records of marine species withhin the marine environment. Another approach would be for an observation to still appear on the species list for the project in which it occurs, even if the location data is obfuscated.
Thanks for your attention to this.
Project where it -should- appear (in my opinion): https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/port-noarlunga-south-australia