I’m not sure what part of the forum this belongs in so I apologize if it is in the wrong area.
I’ve been considering setting up a project in my home city (Albuquerque, NM, USA) tracking the biodiversity within a margin of the irrigation ditches (Acequias) we have here because some people view them with a sense of belonging and pride and I think it could help people get outdoors more.
I’m not sure how to set the observations to track something that is not within the whole city, and doesn’t follow a straight line. I did see that there is the section where you can have users agree to conditions for a project but is there a way to have the computer check the locations as well or would it be up to myself as the project manager to filter the observations?
There is this project, wherein to include an Observation, it has to be within specific set parameters (indoors). That feels similar.
I suggest you see how they did it, read their journal, too, because while I have Observations that are part of it, I honestly do not recall how they came to be. (I feel like I had to answer questions though?) One of the project people @bradleyallf is a forum member. I am unsure how active he is but he was very personable on a thread that touched on his project.
If I’m understanding the question correctly, it sounds like you want to define a very specific area of the map, hand-drawn by you, and include all observations within that space. To do this, the best way I know is to create a “Place”. You use Google’s My Maps to draw the exact polygon you want to cover the space you’re interested in, then you export it as a KML file. Then you go to “Places” on iNat and create the Place, uploading the file you made in My Maps to define the parameters. You can then make a project that includes specifically observations within that area of the map. I did this for my local parks, here: https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/montour-county-public-lands
You can zoom in and see that all the observations are from very specific public places that I hand-drew and then imported.
I know staff discourages the over-use of making new places, especially very large ones. But adding a few small ones here and there for spaces that iNat users will find useful to have defined isn’t a problem.
Do you know if I would have to complete the area of the Map prior to using it? E.G. Do I have to map out all of the ditches and put them into the map or could I start with one neighborhood?
This sounds like what I was trying to get done so thank you for that. I’m just trying to figure out how feasable it is.
You could map out a few of the locations at first, and then edit the project to add more of them later on. The six parks I included in mine weren’t all included at first. I did them one by one and added them over a few days.
That being said, if there are a lot of disconnected spaces you’d like to include, it may be more feasible to draw them all as one map and import them as a single place. You can certainly make maps with non-contiguous boundaries on My Maps and export the KMLs. But I’ve never tried importing one to iNat as a Place, so I don’t know if there’s support for a single Place including multiple non-contiguous boundaries. Hopefully someone else will chime in and have the answer for that.
I would recommend this given the limit on the number of places you can create in a day (and it’s a little neater). The iNat KML uploader can be a little picky, but this is possible. Then you can update the place with a new KML as you add ditches to it. Keep in mind, though, that with very small places the observations must be very precise/accurate to show up in the place/project.
Yes, this is always a concern. One of the Places in my local park project is a trail that goes through private land, but the trail itself is open to the public. So the Place I use to catch those observations is a very long, thin shape, and I know observations get missed if the GPS throws them 25 meters off to the north or south. I personally check all my observations for the day after visiting the trail, and move any of them that were a little off so they’re all included in the project, but I doubt anyone else does this.
This is why we decided to go with a traditional project (like Never Home Alone) for https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/watson-preserve . I don’t have to nag people to fix their location if I want to get it in the project.
Have you found people to be fairly responsible about their observations? I’m nervous about starting this project because while it is public access to be on the sides of the ditches there are many many private backyards that back onto the ditch? I know its different than a natural preserve but just wondering how much shenanigans you end up getting in the project as a whole?
Also leaving it open you found that people don’t add inappropriately? That sounds a lot easier than setting up a map boundary.
I think in general only responsible people would take the trouble to add their observations manually to a traditional project. Of course, you would have to explain in the project description exactly what should be added and maybe make them fill out some observation fields as well. Also you yourself could add observations that are fitting (unless the observer excludes this option).
I don’t understand your concern about the private backyards.
I’m probably just borrowing worry from somewhere it belongs. I’m just looking for more ways to responsibly bring more people out into nature and community.
Whenever I see that one of my Observations has been added to a Project, I go check out that Project. I bet if you take the time to fill out and explain your project before adding Observations, that sense of belonging and pride will kick right in and you may even inspire people to more actively search for Observations within the ditches.
Here is an umbrella Project I think works well that has sort of parameters that are not solely geographic. In this case, they are looking at specific animals (newts) doing a specific thing (crossing a road). I just like how neat and tidy this is, as are each of the years within it, how it clearly states the why and is easy to navigate and how even though the geographic area is rather spread out, (like the Never Home Alone), the scope of the Project is still very well constricted (unsure if this is the correct term).
I really like the idea of what you are envisioning and wish you much success.
Only times I see inappropriate observations added to the Watson Preserve project is when someone batch adds to the project and forgets that they stopped somewhere else that same day. It is easy to remove those observations as the project curator. I know that Never Home Alone was having problems with people adding stuff from their backyard. I volunteered to help curate for that project. Hopefully since they added the required observation field “This organism was found inside, right?” it isn’t happening as much. You could make a similar required observation field.
Another benefit of traditional projects is that the project always shows up in the list of projects on the observation page. Collection projects only show up there if the observer has joined the project. Having the project there on the observation page helps people discover your project.
PS You can also set up a traditional project where only curators can add observations. You can add what you want and not have to remove what you don’t want. That’s what I did for my backyard project. That way I never had to worry about random people adding obs to it. However, that’s probably not something you want to do for your project from the sounds of it.
This seems the way to go. If you try and use a KML for such narrow linear features, it’s going to be frustrating, because observations that should be in the project won’t get captured.
If you do have some easily accessible data on the routes of these canals then you could always add a buffer to them as a first-pass filter to catch observations in the right general area. This would make it a lot easier to then do the manual work of vetting and adding to a traditional project, for you or anyone who is contributing. You could do this just using the KML/place in the URL filter but also with a collection project.
Our local redlist projects essentially work this way, with threatened taxa in a collection project that helps you to catch them and then add the important occurrence/threat data to an associated traditional project.