What happens with records where the species is obscured and then unobscured like we have been facing here in Canada. On the records, it seems to show a 20+ km buffer, but it seems that might not be what the user has put in ?
Since atlases use standard admin level 0,1,2 places and these places use true coordinates (not obscured) coordinates to filter observations, issues with obscuration shouldn’t impact atlases (but let me know if you see otherwise).
Remember for all other places that aren’t admin level 0,1,2 standard places (or City Nature Challenge Places) if the place is small relative to the obscuration cell, then the place might not filter observations using their true coordinates due to concerns that people will use small places to locate rare species
The problem isn’t strictly with obscuring, it’s the combination of obscured and large accuracy values. With obscured observations, there’s an accuracy value given, but the circle itself isn’t visible (see https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/obscuring-rectangle-on-obs-with-large-accuracy-circles-may-not-encompass-true-location/703/19 for a suggestion on how to fix that). For observations that are both obscured and with large accuracy, it’s unclear whether it’s appropriate to mark not accurate in the DQA or to let them continue flagging the atlas. It’s possible the accuracy circle does include part of the atlas even if the “true coordinates” aren’t in it. (If that didn’t make sense, I can send a better description privately so as not to “give away” any tips.)
Related, I’m not sure I agree with how you’re using “true coordinates”. For something with a 1000 km accuracy circle, the true coordinates are the center, but that doesn’t guarantee the organism was seen anywhere near there.
At any rate, a 5-10 km cutoff should fix it for both obscured and unobscured observations.