I have searched the forum for some time now, but I couldn’t find any thread that clearly answered this question. I generally upload my observations “obscured” for two reasons: a) a lot of my observations are in or around my home and b) I consider quite a lot of my observations as sensible and therefore don’t want everyone to see the exact location.
I generally thought that when observations get exported to GBIF, that the precise location would be included and was therefore available for science. Recently an identifier commented something along the lines of “uploading observations obscured makes them worthless for science“ under one of my observations and it made me wonder if my believe was wrong and obscuring the location does indeed turn the data worthless?
I’d be very happy to get some help on this topic! :)
No, obscured data is not worthless. For plants (at least), obscured locations align with the status quo since most herbarium specimens (until recently) give a county-level locale (perhaps with a general hint of a finer-level locale). For this reason, distribution resources are usually compiled at either the county level or the state level.
That is not to say that open location data is not useful since surely it is. iNaturalist observations offer the opportunity for fine-grained distribution maps that are not possible with specimens.
The option to obscure location exists for a reason, and you should stick to what you’re comfortable with. I’m sorry someone was rude to you about it.
For rare species (especially of plants and insects) certain scientists want to go find them and collect specimens (which may be one of the things you’re trying to avoid) so for them, a precise location makes their jobs much easier.
Obscured locations are fine for more general uses, like tracking range expansions or reductions on a large scale, and adding more photos to the database.
For your home you can also use a pinned location, as I do. Mine is for my suburb. The flower in the sea is vulnerable in the wild - but mine will be rehomed when the leaves fade, too exuberant for a small garden!
For what you want to protect from poachers or disturbance (nesting birds ?) you can wait and upload months later. Seen in 2009 and wary of orchid poachers. But it remains your choice to obscure if it suits you.
I obscure for personal privacy as well as the fact my observations will be on iNat long after I sell. I wouldn’t want the new owners having THEIR property so well marked out!
As for saying my obs. are worthless? My response is a silent “so what? Says who?” ( I don’t bother to respond)
That’s up to who wants to use my observations. They have plenty of worth to iNat in general and me in particular. If someone can convince me of the NEED for location, they can contact me.
when i read what the other person actually said, and i don’t read that person’s words quite as negatively as “worthless”, but i can see why someone might react negatively to such an unsolicited comment regardless, especially when no additional explanation is provided for why your specific observation is important or why specific scientists can’t use it.
in this case, i would just ignore the comment and move on. in a case that was clearly more abusive, i might flag the comment.
it’s fine that you’re obscuring observations, but it may be worth noting that iNaturalist’s obscuring functionality is not perfect. it’s possible to determine the true location of almost any obscured observation, although it’s not well-known how to do it (as far as i know). just keep that in mind, and remember that the only way to fully protect a location is to never post it in the first place.
I started obscuring my obs when I had a mothing night where I uploaded a bunch (sorry to the lepidoptera IDers) and there were a few that were rare/endangered. After that I set almost all my obs to obscured because I don’t always want it to be easy for people to find the exact locations.
Now, there are some I leave the acuracy on because my thought behind the obs was more detailed as to the location. I recently posted some galls that I typically don’t see at roadside and I found them right along a busy road, Or when I’m on a long hike (Camino del Santiago), when I go back and upload those photos the accuracy is open because, well its not a private location.
While I have read and understand reasons why people obscure locations, I don’t agree with doing it. I may be in the minority here. If one of the big reasons for iNat is to document and share data on organisms, how does withholding a portion of the data help?
I think you’re confusing obscured with private? But anyway I think we can all agree that a using iNaturalist should entail a respect for wildlife, and sometimes with sensitive locations it is absolutely beneficial to hide the exact location. Researchers can bypass this by directly contacting observers or by utilizing projects which allow admins access to hidden locations. Obscured geoprivacy is extremely useful to this end, because it protects locations while still allowing the observations to be found more easily than if they were private.
I would love to see people more strongly discouraged from using the ‘private’ location option - not least because it would actually help them too! I’m very hesitant to ID when there’s zero location data because of a fear of unfamiliar lookalikes elsewhere, not to mention many searches will use location and therefore ‘private’ observations aren’t even seen as much. ‘Obscured’ hides the exact location but at least provides enough information to enable ID.