There seem to be a number of insect observations that are incorrectly showing up in the Arctic, some of which have a different locality mentioned in the data. There are some in that link which are valid, but most are not.
The ones I looked at are mapped there, obviously in error by the user, so there is no bug here.
You can vote the location as inaccurate and/or leave a note for the user, a few may respond.
At a minimum the research grade ones should get a location is inaccurate flag to remove that status. There are a few that look legit (Greenland, Svalbard, Baffin Island etc ) so their location should not be voted down.
ah, maybe this should be moved to the General Forum so that we can get some volunteers to help right these wrongs.
Some of the observations do look weird.
Could it be that these were listed as observed above lon 170 with high inaccuracies, so they aren’t able to map the bounding range?
The rest seem to at least load their maps.
Flat projection maps cant deal well with attempting to visualize circles (the 10000 km uncertainty buffer) at polar regions.That’s why the map does not look right.
I’ve seen this happen before. I think it might be a bug, or at least a UX issue so I’m OK keeping it in this category for now. I’ll see if any of the users can give me some insight into how the location was added.