This might be an issue with how boundaries are defined between iNaturalist and the Google maps used to display points, but it seems like it could be potentially problematic for some inventories. On the record linked above, for example, the observation was taken on the Colorado side of the border. The Google map agrees with this, showing the pin and the entirety of the accuracy ring within the state of Colorado. However, iNaturalist lists the record as being in Wyoming.
I agree, shouldn’t have to move the location pin, but it does appear the state line as recognized by iNat makes an odd and likely inaccurate jag in this area.
FWIW, this is an international problem caused by the data set iNaturalist uses to establish areas. Fixing it requires fixing the lines and, from what I have read before, it is cost and time prohibitive. The usual solution provided is to move your observation so that it falls on the side of the line where you think it belongs.
This is a fairly significant issue along boundaries that follow streams. Sometimes you just have to make allowances for inaccuracies in the data set and move on.
I see. It wasn’t apparent to me that boundaries described in those other posts (which generally refer to the polygon shown on the map overlay) were the same as the actual boundaries used for denoting the location of a pin.
I’m not interested in moving my pin, as that wouldn’t accurately reflect my sighting, but I may temporarily add a “casual” observation into the correct state for my own records.
