This is the best algorithm
Well, if you wanted to be completely mathematically rigorous about it, rounding the corners results in actually the smallest possible shape:
But that’s probably a complete waste of effort 
But yeah, as long as it isn’t a problem computationally, it would be best to apply this to all obscured observations. Even observations with very small accuracy values can sometimes be in the wrong box if they happen to fall very close to the edge.
True, but it sounded like maybe there’s a desire to have the rectangle shape consistently mean “obscured”.
Yes, one of the goals @kueda listed was to convey the fact that the observation is obscured, and the rounded corners, while mathematically correct, would be hard to distinguish visually from an accuracy circle.
@kueda any further thoughts? Just saw another observation clearly depicting the wrong location.
i guess i’m having a hard time understanding why this matters. With an uncertainty circle of over 400 km (!) what is it you are using this data for that is spatial in nature? Anything with that low a level of precision shouldn’t be showing on the maps anyway (and i thought it didn’t?). I get that it’s a weird result of the auto obscuring but i kinda don’t get why these observations are being used for anything other than AI training or something anyway.
It’s been said above ^
@charlie I believe iNat needs to take a line then on the largest inaccuracy allowable on a taxon before it becomes useless to all the data partners or the site. Then taxa with too uch inaccuracy, such as the entirety of Yellowstone, do not belong here. If they are useful nontheless to somebody, then conceivably somebody wants to display them. Even if not, I suppose the users might want to display them, because the accuracy might be good enough on the scale of the county or country or region, and so help with the layman’s id, which is what most of the ids are going to be eventually.
I have observations going to a place, which is a rough estimate of where I found them. I could put most of them within 100 yards, but not closer, due to no GPS on camera. I put them much less close than this because observations track human movement and I don’t want to be tracked myself so closely. Should these be used on the site? I move my pins a little too. While the observations have large circles, the circles are much, much smaller than a few levels of classification of the regions of interest where they are located.
For these purposes, an obscuration and no fudging of the accuracy circle might work better, for the consistent randomization it brings. Still there is the limit of whether I know the true true location very well.
And on this discussion, what actually are these observations used for? Who uses them with very fine spatial resolution (and how often does one get that), and who uses them requiring only broad resolution, and who in between?
There was a thread on this, on making the super coarse ones not count as research grade. It’s something i support and it was actually the case for a while but got reversed and I doubt it gets put back. I’m not going to try to explain the reasoning behind it because if i do it will be a sarcastic snarky mess, needless to say it wasn’t the outcome I felt was best. Here’s the thread https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/dont-let-an-observation-attain-research-grade-if-its-location-is-very-imprecise/2072/59 it is locked so you can’t post on it but, you can see the discussion. There is a threshold beyond which it won’t show on the range maps which is good, but the threshold is too high.
please don’t do that, please do create the correct uncertainty circle,because otherwise if you give people permission to use your obscured data points they will not know the data wasn’t precise.
I do! But for like, applied ecology and land management, i won’t be publishing any papers.
i guess some people do though i don’t understand how or why. There’s lots of discussion in that thread.
precise (+/- 2m) = I do, for specimens at arboretum, which are in turn used in studies
imprecise = I do, if I am looking to see what can be found where I am visiting, so I can find and add to my lifelist! I don’t NEED to find it though, it just gives me a heads up on what to look out for.
@kueda any chance for a yes or no on this one? Here’s another case where the user drew a circle around the entire country and the obscuring rectangle now says there are elephants where there are most certainly not elephants: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/35028234
I think the algorithm from https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/obscuring-rectangle-on-obs-with-large-accuracy-circles-may-not-encompass-true-location/703/20 should work.
I recently saw an observation that had a location accuracy value of 42 km, yet the observer said in the description “Location information obscured because precise data unavailable.”
The result is that while the observer-recorded accuracy circle is 42 km, the obscuring rectangle is 28 km. The observer has in fact reduced the displayed error by obscuring the observation even though they intended for the location to show a larger error.
Just chiming in that this remains a problem. Recent case: