How to suggest a correction to an observation of a mineral that the observer thought was a lichen? “Mineral,” “Rock,” “State of matter - mineral,” etc. don’t seem to be available as IDs, and “unknown” translates to “Life,” which in this case is also incorrect. I did check thumbs down on “Evidence of organism” to make the observation Casual.
2 Likes
I think identifying it as human is the way to go. This removes it from the mapping and every photo is evidence of a human. Although still having the lichen ID would need 3 “Human” ID’s.
There is also the flag “Evidence of organism” to check appropriately.
My take is that a mineral that has not been processed is not evidence of humans. I’d just mark it thumbs-down on “Evidence of organism” and move on.
2 Likes
To distinguish from casual grade observations of a particular lichen species, I would add a disagreeing Life ID in addition to marking as no evidence of organism. There was a request to add a “not life” ID but the staff didn’t go forward with that: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/identify-observation-as-non-living/2326
Thanks for the suggestions. I think I would vote to provide a simple, unambiguous “Not Life” category that could be applied consistently by everyone, so as to avoid different users having to come up with different, therefore inconsistent, and sometimes ambiguous or incomplete work-arounds for observations of rocks, trash, etc.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.