Recording data from two different countries without mixing observations

Please could you advise how I can record my observations from England and Uganda separately without setting up two accounts. I don’t want to mix my observations and would rather keep my UK records separate from my Ugandan observations.

Many thanks,

You can’t, there’s one account for all your observations, you can set up projects to more easily see them separately or just make searches using geography.


Oh, Ok, thank you. I’ll stick with iRecord then for my UK species observations, and continue to use my iNaturalist account for Uganda.

Many thanks for your response.

It’s up to you, though it’d be a pity to not see part of your observations here, you still can see data from those places separately and create lists to add species there (though 2 projects sounds like an easier solution), it’s just that at default your account will show all of them together.


Thank you for explaining how it all works. It’s definitely something to think about!


You can easily see your observations separately from the two countries by going to “Your observations” and typing the country into the “Location” field.


Hi @dazzy78. If you want to describe a couple of scenarios where you would like to work separately with your observations from the UK and Uganda, I’m sure other iNat users would be happy to share how they handle similar requirements. Alternatively, let us know what type of problems you’re experiencing (or anticipate) from having observations from both places and we’ll suggest how those problems can be avoided.


It’s worth noting that there is work being done to link iNat with iRecord. iNat observations would count toward iRecord, but the reverse is not true.

Assuming the bugs get worked out, this means that iNat observations would be able to be more widely used, including by the people who rely on iRecord data, but that iRecord data would not have that same reach and ease of use by researchers and such.


Thank you for replying. I just think it looks bizarre having British species mixed with tropical species. I think I’ll stick to iRecords when I’m back in England, and continue with iNaturalist with my Ugandan species. I now know you can sort by location and set up groups, but I don’t like the fact you can’t segregate country observations. I guess it’s just me being fussy! Best wishes, Darren

Thank you for the info. This is interesting to hear about.
Best wishes, Darren.

It’s absolutely fine for you to use iNaturalist in whatever way works best for you (assuming you stay within the fairly minimal guidelines). No one should feel the need to add observations or IDs unless it works for them, and if you feel there are ways that iNat might work better for you, you’re welcome to propose suggestions here in the forum. (That said, check first to see whether someone else has raised a similar issue, which happens fairly often.)

I wonder if this might be a bigger issue for you because you’ve made a set of (really interesting) observations in one place (Uganda) and now the idea of adding some very different observations (from the UK) to that set messes up the organization. All sorts of people use iNat, and that does include plenty of people who have a deep interest in specific taxa and locations and also record more general observations from other places they visit.

Hypothetically, in your case, you might add observations in the UK of, say, Coccinella septempunctata (Seven-spot Ladybird Beetle) and Erinaceus europaeus (Common Hedgehog). These will then show up alongside your Ugandan Tortoise Beetle observations in some places in iNat (e.g. in your “life list”). But there’s no reason why that needs to cause any problem—it just reflects the fact that, like many people, you pay attention to all sorts of nature you come across as you travel.

If you want to focus on something specific to Uganda, or Tortoise Beetles, any search in the observation or identify dialogs is going to allow you to limit the scope to a particular location (e.g. Uganda) and/or taxon (e.g. Cassidinae). Anyone identifying others’ observations is very likely to be using various filters to ensure they review observations of the taxa and areas that they’re familiar with. By including all your observations in iNat, you also have ability to search across them if needed, so you can see in one place all the Cucujiformia beetles you’ve observed across the UK, Uganda and anywhere else. If that works for you, great, and if it doesn’t you’re welcome to use iNat for just a portion of your observations.


Yes sir, it is about the organization for me. I now know that I can filter, but it would seem odd (to me) to have a mish-mash of observations from two separate countries on the same main page. I feel the same way about my Salisbury Plain observations on iRecords. I wouldn’t like to see them jumbled with my Ugandan records either!

All the best,

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.