this is a place to discuss general policy issues and questions regarding geoprivacy, obscuring observations, and auto-obscuring. If you have specific feature requests related to this please post them as feature requests. This is more a place for general discussion. Please do not post loopholes or w…

[image] tonyrebelo: if I cite location for a subspecies (or allopatric species) identification I get shouted down and told that I need some physically visible feature to make the ID Ignore the shouters, especially if they offer little to change your mind/position

I wish I could follow everything you are discussing. Since I can’t, I’m just going to throw a specific question out here. Does it seem right that a plant found only in a couple of coast range counties in California http://bonap.net/FieldMaps/Home/SingleMap?taxonId=1139&mapType=County is obscured so …

It was mapped somewhere within that green square. If the plant isn’t known to occur there it’s either a new population or mapped wrong.

[image] charlie: It was mapped somewhere within that green square. If the plant isn’t known to occur there it’s either a new population or mapped wrong. The location accuracy is 111 km. Would that have been chosen by the observer, or by the obscure feature?

The user. See this open issue: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/obscuring-rectangle-on-obs-with-large-accuracy-circles-may-not-encompass-true-location/703

It doesn’t display on the taxon page map or Explore map, but as paloma said, it still shows up on place checklists (Placer County) and search results: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/77811-Lomatium-hooveri https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?&place_id=2283&taxon_id=77811

Is that intentional for some reason? I’m wondering if the huge accuracy circle observations need to show up in Explore and checklists.

to be honest i’d rather if they showed up nowhere at all though i know opinions vary.

It turned out that the observation I was interested in was in the wrong county because of faulty GPS. The observer didn’t realized she had the wrong location or a large accuracy circle. She explained here: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/11352005 So now it is on the map in the correct place…

Geoprivacy, Obscuring, and Auto Obscure Discussion

General

charlie March 28, 2019, 12:12am 31

ah that would do it. i thought things with that low of accuracy wouldn’t show on range maps though

Range maps for vascular plants

Topic		Replies	Views
Mass conservation status imports: Please do not auto-obscure non-threatened taxa that are not being targeted by people Curators	28	1813	November 29, 2021
Auto Obscuring Critically Endangered organisms? General	30	598	February 1, 2026
Updates to taxon geoprivacy and conservation statuses in Canada News and Updates	104	5463	July 29, 2022
Updates to conservation statuses in progress in Canada News and Updates	272	13832	September 28, 2019
Criteria for default geo-privacy General geoprivacy	61	3369	July 27, 2021

Geoprivacy, Obscuring, and Auto Obscure Discussion

Related topics