Pros and Cons of obscuring geoprivacy

General
1

I’ve found an iNat user who has lots of good observation but they’re not showing up in projects or stats because the user always sets their geoprivacy to Obscured.

Personally, I like to have geoprivacy Open except for certain situations because it makes the data more useful. E.g. I know that staff at a local conservation area regularly search iNaturalist for what species have been seen in the area, for various reasons.

To me, the main reasons for obscuring location would be:

  • Protecting certain taxa from poachers
  • Hiding personal info like the location of a user’s home

I’d like to know:

  • What do you consider the pros and cons of keeping geoprivacy open?
  • How important is it for the users of the data (e.g. researchers, nature reserves, municipalities) to have access to the location data?
  • Will obscured observations show up in searches if the entire ‘box’ is inside the search area?
  • I don’t know which taxa are likely to be poached. Am I naïve in trusting that if it was important it would have taxon geoprivacy?
2

Hello,

I’m trying to find a solution for this situation.

I’m thinking about a basic configuration for project locations that could help us include observations that are on country borders, have obscured locations, or have some problem with the location information.

For example:

Location

Include:

  • Brazil (country)

  • Brasília (city)

Location Exception

Include observations from all Brazilian states, except one specific state, where I want to include all those observations.

So, basically, the project would have a configuration like this:

This would allow the project to capture Threatened animals or observations based on the location rules, even when the observation has an obscured location or is close to a border.

The idea is to make this configuration directly in the project location settings.
Is one basic logic in the location on the projects.

My Exemplo.
To take all observation with obscuring location or on the country border or problem in location information.

Will be this configuration in the project

  • Localização
    Brazil
    Distrito Federal, BR

-EXcept

Goiás, BR
Mato Grosso do Sul, BR
Mato Grosso, BR
Acre, BR
Alagoas, BR
Amapá, BR
Amazonas, BR
Bahia, BR
Ceará, BR
Espírito Santo, BR
French Guiana
Maranhão, BR
Minas Gerais, BR
Paraná, BR
Paraíba, BR
Pará, BR
Pernambuco, BR
Piauí, BR
Rio Grande do Norte, BR
Rio Grande do Sul, BR
Rio de Janeiro, BR
Rondônia, BR
Roraima, BR
Santa Catarina, BR
Sergipe, BR
São Paulo, BR
Tocantins, BR

My Exemplo

https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/brasil-centro-oeste

I hope this helps.

Rergards

Wallace

3

Two quick notes:

  1. It isn’t possible to set an account to have a default geoprivacy of “Obscured”. User’s need to denote this when they upload. Staff have noted no plans for a “default” geoprivacy.

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/changing-default-geoprivacy/14207

  1. Obscured observations are still indexed to iNat standard places

See some info:

https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/151000175028-what-is-an-inaturalist-place-

https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/151000169938-what-is-geoprivacy-what-does-it-mean-for-an-observation-to-be-obscured-

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/best-way-to-access-standard-place-data-for-obscured-observations/71453

4

A third reason would be to prevent trampling/stress on populations from “over love”. Something may not be a poaching target, but is rare or cool and may be detrimentally affected by too many people visiting it, even if they have good intentions.

5

Good to know. I guess they must obscure the location with each upload then.

Oh - I’d always assumed that cities were standard places.

Thanks for the info.

6

Here’s the iNat help doc about default obscuration for accounts: https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/151000192907-can-i-set-a-default-geoprivacy-for-my-observations-

I personally obscure all observations I make when I’m walking around my neighborhood, which I do a lot since I have a dog. It becomes pretty much second nature to me.

7

Agreed that this is important! Things like ground plants could be accidentally stepped on by someone going out to look for it. Even if they didn’t intend to cause harm, sometimes humans make mistakes and it’s important to account for that. :)

8

I do not have expert advice on this, just my experience, which is that the way it is automatically set mostly works in my area.

In the course of my random explorations, though, I have come across some exceptions, so I do think it’s wise to keep an eye out.

For example, in my area, the Ohio DNR lists only one native species of prickly pear cactus. But, iNat recognizes several (including two that ODNR treats as synonyms). So, unless ODNR starts using the same taxonomy as iNat, there cannot be an official source on the conservation status of those species. After asking for advice from people who know about these species (i.e. the people who were helping with identifying them), I’ve started obscuring almost all of my Ohio wild prickly pear observations. (Which reminds me, I really need to reach out to that park and find out how many species they think they have.)

9

Couldn’t agree more. IMO, routinely obscuring observations runs contrary to the purpose of having a public, online database and citizen science. Moreover, almost everything people could hope to achieve by obscuring observations could be achieved by the less drastic means of simply employing a large accuracy circle rather than pinpointing each observation on the map.

Fears of crowds descending upon some organism just because it is reported to iNat are greatly exaggerated in my experience. There aren’t that many people interested in most of the taxa reported here. (Though of course I agree obscuring should occur for things in the above two categories, such as rare plants, herps sought in the pet trade, etc.)

10

if particular locations are very sensitive, i would strongly suggest not posting an observation at all as a first option. because of how the system works right now, the true recorded locations of obscured observations are never really fully protected.

11

Yes it’s true nothing is privet but you can choose where to put your observation in a differnt distance if your uncomfortable with the location found at .

12

I have several locations set so that I can select them when uploading an observation: my old home, my new home, Dittmer-Watts park where I went during CNC, the Toyota place where I take my car for maintenance, and a place near a doctor’s office. Of these, my old and new homes are obscured, the rest are public.

I’ve thought of obscuring the church where I go, but haven’t. Most of the coordinates at church are computed by surveying, as I surveyed the lot a few years ago in preparation for paving the parking lot. Someone might figure out when I go to church from the times of the observations.

13

One of the most common reasons I obscure locations is when I’m uploading images from camera traps, especially if I intend to keep cameras at that spot. When I was in southern California, where there is a strong community of camera trappers, we all had stories of our cameras being stolen—and folks believed some of the thefts were due to open location sharing on iNaturalist.

14

Important to whom? The species as a whole? The individual organism? The observer? The property owner?

I believe taxon geoprivacy only applies to listed, threatened species, where pressure from poaching (or harassment by birdwatchers, et cetera) is a significant threat to species survival.

This doesn’t mean people won’t poach more common species, just that the population as a whole is stable enough to (as a species) survive that poaching.

Around here mushroom poachers absolutely do use iNat data to find mushrooms on private land and in protected preserves, and often do a lot of damage to delicate woodland ephemerals in the process.

Legal mushroom hunters also use iNat to see exactly when and where popular species occur (on puplic land that allows mushrooming) and rush out after the easy pickin’s that come with GPS coordinates. Some observers will be absolutely fine with this, and others will not - either because they hunt that patch themselves, or because they took a photo of something beautiful that caught their eye in nature, and don’t want to be responsible for it’s premature destruction. It’s just a personal choice.

And it’s not just mushrooms. A rare-for-the-area but not legally protected butterfly sighting could attract collectors, a buck with large antlers deer hunters in fall, et cetera. These are just some of the reasons people might choose to obscure for the protection of the organism or the habitat it was found in, even when the species is not at any risk of extinction from poaching.

On the personal privacy side of things: Someone might be obscuring all observations because they are using iNat entirely to record diversity in their own back yard. They might be observing on someone else’s private land. They might have a predictable routine and belong to a vulnerable demographic - such as a young woman who jogs alone on the same trail every Tuesday morning.

I don’t post many observations of my own (much more interested in identifying for others) but so far every one has been obscured. Most because they were on other people’s private land. A couple at my own house. One on public land that I chose to obscure to protect the subject itself, even though it was not an endangered species. There would be a lot of organisms I would not feel any need to obscure on public land, but so far, I also haven’t felt inclined to bother posting those at all.

15

In addition to the comment by @tiwane about preventing trampling or stress on populations: in the Netherlands we have seen a lot of bad behaviour from twitchers. What began with hundreds of people showing up at a vagrant bird site, on some occasions even a cemetery that gets trampled, has now turned into people going on an all-round twitching spree: they twitch anything from insects, plants, mosses and lichens; a +1 on the list means a dopamine rush. Some of them extract specimens because they are collectors of orchids, others extract mosses or collect hoverflies when an identification is only possible by microscopical identification. Admins on Waarneming (Dutch site for nature observations much like iNaturalist) have expressed their concern to some users about their obsessive twitching behaviour: on a day off, they drive throughout the entire country going from one report to another.

Uploading observations has become a two-edged sword: no observations means no information but any uploaded observation of a rare species will attract twitchers. So we sometimes have to obscure observations to prevent twitchers from knowing that there is a rarity to be found. On the one hand, I dislike this, because I am all about freely sharing and helping each other to see as many species as possible, and I do not think nature observation should be restricted, ego-driven and competitive, but on the other hand, some people care more about their list than about actually observing, getting to know and learning from the organisms that they list, and giving them rest and space to thrive. There is a huge gamification of nature observation, where listing a new species is almost like catching a new Pokémon, and the list itself has become more important than the well-being of the organisms on that list.

I am sometimes mothing with friends in natural areas in the Netherlands and Germany (which are all free to access except for certain parts during the breeding season so as to protect fragile bird and insect populations). Even though you can stand almost everywhere, you are not allowed to set up a UV light and mothing sheet within the limits of the fragile parts of natural reserves: in both countries you need a permit, and also keep a list of all of the species that you register with an estimate indication of the number of individuals per species, and submit that list to the corresponding state forestry department as a way of volunteering for their database. Other mothing enthusiasts have reported that when they shared a rarity that they found on such a location, and visited the same location the next day, they have encountered twitchers who sway through the habitat with umbrellas and beating nets: everything to get that species back.

I have uploaded entire mothing sessions to iNat for which I had to obscure the location just because there was one rarity during the night. Sure, I could have also skipped that one report of the rarity but then what is perhaps the most interesting observation will be lost. If you only obscure that one sighting of the rarity, twitchers will still know where you were based on the other observations of the same day with the open coordinates. Setting the location for those observations to ‘oscure’ is a nice way to still be able to share the moth photos online with people from around the world while giving an idea of where the observation was roughly made.

16

Wow. That is terrible and sad.

17

I mainly observe plants and believe in keeping geolocations open and only obscure them if 1) it’s on private land or there is a personal privacy issue 2) there is a major issue with harvesting or poaching of that particular species . Where I’m observing, “over-love” trampling is rarely going to be an issue, but I can see obscuring for that reason as well.

My honest opinion … is that I often get quite annoyed with what I consider to be excessive auto-obscuring by I-Nat of plants. The historic locations are usually available on other websites, so it’s not always an effective tactic. A lot of rare plants are never going to be targeted for the above reasons^^. My recent experience , is that the lack of easily accessible knowledge that a rare species even exists in a specific location has actually led to its extinction. I visited about 8-10 areas here in California that have very recently been plowed , turned into grazing land or developed with infrastructure that wiped out all the rare plants. Not to say that knowledge would have stopped the destruction- but the conversation cant happen if it’s difficult to see what’s growing there.

18

I would argue for not obscuring observations except in limited cases where we know that the organisms are actually vulnerable in that location.

Nonetheless, I do know posting plants can lead to their being killed. I post a lot of weed observations from a more or less public location that has been planted with diverse trees and shrubs, some of which produce seeds that come up in other landscaping beds and unmanaged spots. This is true even of species I’m told don’t spread. :slightly_smiling_face: For a few years, I would post diverse escapes with fairly precise locations, then come back a couple weeks later to find the more unusual ones removed or killed. Annoying! (I wanted to see if they’d survive long-term.) The association was close enough I decided somebody was following my observations. I changed how I labeled such observations and posted fewer of them, and more importantly there may have been changes in the personnel who take care of the grounds. Anyway, nobody seems to care right now. Bottom line: iNaturalist observations can put weeds at risk! Not that most people would consider that a problem. Sigh.

19

As an identifier of birds statewide, I will not identify observations that are obscured for no obvious reason (i.e., not rare, not sensitive species). Hiding the location removes key information on habitat that can help me decide if an ID is correct. And some people obscure ALL their observations. To me, this is contrary to one of the most important purposes of iNaturalist - to foster an understanding of the relationship between an organism and the surrounding environment. I can understand it if the observation is likely to draw poachers or too many people, but that should be an unusual situation, not the default.

20

Some people obscure observations to protect their own privacy rather than to protect the species being observed.

E.g., if one is observing mostly at or near where one has lived, it may be desirable to not provide too much information about one’s address or one’s daily habits (the places one frequents, timing of regular trips out of town, etc.), particularly if one has experienced stalking or other situations of people misusing this information.

Some people may also obscure all observations made on the same day as an observation of a sensitive species, in order to make it a bit more difficult to extrapolate where that species was found based on other observations uploaded at approximately the same time.