# Geoprivacy, Obscuring, and Auto Obscure Discussion

**URL:** <https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/geoprivacy-obscuring-and-auto-obscure-discussion/457>\
**Category:** General\
**Created:** [February 27, 2019, 11:50pm UTC](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/geoprivacy-obscuring-and-auto-obscure-discussion/457 "2019-02-27T23:50:03Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![henrydelange](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.inaturalist.org/henrydelange/32/122_2.png) [@henrydelange](https://forum.inaturalist.org/u/henrydelange)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2019, 10:53am UTC](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/geoprivacy-obscuring-and-auto-obscure-discussion/457/5 "2019-02-28T10:53:33Z")

</div>

> [@tonyrebelo](#):
>
> But can I make a request that observations that have a Locality Resolution (aka Accuracy, aka positional\_accuracy) higher than critical levels also be obscured. So if a locality resolution is 100km, then the data should display just like hidden data

👍  
This could be very helpful. (Off topic, but I wish it was easier to see location accuracy in the identify tool.)

I would also like it if there were more than one “size” of obscured grid, to deal with the different needs. In many cases I think the current obscured grid is too large (or unnecessary).

Examples:  
I want to use a small grid to hide my field active equipment locations (camera traps, etc.).  
I want to use a large grid for species threatened by collection (poaching, etc.).

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/geoprivacy-obscuring-and-auto-obscure-discussion/457)._