Out of curiosity, I looked at the accuracy circles of 100 random verifiable iNat observations and found the average radius of an accuracy circle is 359.92 meters (or around 0.2 miles).
There is a system at iNaturalist to automatically obscure some observations based on a set of criteria. Itās currently implemented, and these criteria are being applied to all observations.
You appear to be demanding that a subset of observations be special-cased out based on how the corresponding species are treated on an entirely different platform with different standards of reporting. Presumably you want this special-casing to be maintained as well, as in if anything changes over at ebird, it should change here as well.
All of this sounds like a lot of effort to me. A lot of continuing effort for no precisely defined benefit, only a vaguely defined notion that āsome species maybe donāt strictly need to be obscured.ā
Itās probably true that they donāt need to be obscured. So feel free to volunteer your time to set up this system of special-casing that you so vocally demand.
1 Like
Thereās a lot of clear benefit from that. If that needed just an effort from us this theme wouldnāt be up, cause people would already working on it.
Of the 42 million observations with a precision (āaccuracyā on iNat) radius set, around half are set at 25 meters or below. Around 17% have the radius set at 359 meters or greater. If you limit it to birds these numbers change to 34% and 24% respectively.
Every geoprivacy status is a special case; there is no clear-cut list of criteria when to or not obscure something, just an overall guiding philosophy. We discuss this on flags on each taxon. Using a curated list provided at a similar biodiversity site seems like a helpful guiding point, and discussing the different ways data are reported on each also seems useful.
5 Likes
I would happy to do put some time into this, but
A. I wanted some discussion on if the eBird list was a good guideline or not.
B. I am not a curator so I canāt change the statuses.
c. If we were going to follow this a lot of people would need to work on this.
not surprising it is a little higher for birds, they are likely the least frequently photographed with a cell phone. Higher percent of dslr photos equals higher rate of manually entering location.
4 Likes
Good point. Almost every animal pic I take is with a DSLR w/o GPS, so I end up āobscuringā the location somewhat when I submit since I may not recall exactly where I was standing. Even a lot of my cell phone pics have to have the coordinates manually entered since Iām often not in cell phone range.
1 Like
Probably the oddest case of this is Eastern Hognose Snake observations in Ontario ā they donāt even show up on the map, and all observations are automatically listed as āmissing locationā. Compare this to an actually imperilled reptile such as Blandingās Turtle, which isnāt subject to such extensive suppressing. No clue why this was done.
https://inaturalist.ca/observations?place_id=6883&taxon_id=29925
1 Like
The auto obscuring is set to private not obscured and of course curators are not permitted to change anything regarding obscuring in Canada. Even before NatureServe took over managing the status, just before in fact if I remember an iNat curator unilaterally decided to change it and now that decision is frozen due to not being allowed to make changes.
1 Like
Eastern Hognose Snake is in the same unfortunate situation as the Piping Plovers on Lake of the Woods. The species may be Least Concern in some other jurisdictions, but - quoting - in Ontario:
āThe eastern hog-nosed snake is currently listed as Threatened under the Ontario Endangered Species Act, 2007 and Threatened under the federal Species at Risk Act. The species has also been designated as a Specially Protected Reptile under the Ontario Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act.ā
It looks like Ontario records for Eastern Hognose Snake in iNat have had their locations set to āprivate,ā which is why they are not appearing on the map. I have no issue with this.
I do have an issue with eBird censoring all records of Great Gray Owl in the Districts of Kenora and Rainy River on the (baseless) grounds that GGOW is subject to harassment by photographers here. This includes records back as far as 1987ā¦and I know this because I put those records in eBird. Great Gray Owl has a conservation status of Least Concern in Ontario.
Combined, the Districts of Kenora and Rainy River are a vast wilderness larger than Germany with a population of only 80,000 people. Most of the region has no year-round road access - many communities are air-only. Iām an actual resident Northwestern Ontario birder. In 12 years, I have never seen harassment of owls by photographers or birders in this region. With one exception, Iāve never encountered another birder at any owl location, periodā¦and I have seen many owls over many years. This is Rainy River birding realness.
So: iNat should not follow eBirdās approach. Auto-obscuring of locations by the system must be based on local conservation status, not on assumptions made elsewhere. If owls are being harassed by photographers in urban areas, deal with the problem there. This is possible in iNat: users can increase location privacy when needed. This is not possible in eBird, which is not following conservation status. If it were, the Piping Plovers here would get the protection they need.
2 Likes
eBird obscures Great Gray Owl through its entire range, not exclusively in those areas of Ontario. In many areas the species is a constant target of disturbance by birders and photographers, and it is simply much easier to blanket obscure a species like that through its entire range rather than make exceptions for certain areas of Ontario.
1 Like
iNat blanket obscures species over large areas as well, so Iām not quite sure how you think iNatās system is better in any way.
Thank you for your response. Whether something is āeasierā for eBird is not relevant - nor is the fact that iNatās obscuring filters may cover ālarge areas.ā The question was: should iNat obscure birds not hidden in eBird? Species should be obscured on a rational, evidence-based basis respecting local conservation status. That is not the net result of eBirdās approach in my region. It is the net result of iNatās approach in my region.
How this plays out elsewhere is for observers there to decide. Context is everything. If Great Gray Owls are a āconstant targetā in other regions, take proportionate steps to obscure their locations there. iNat empowers observers to do that. At the same time, critically-imperiled species in my region should have their nesting locations auto-obscured. eBird does not do that. iNat does.
Having fewer species obscured in Northwestern Ontario is not an end in itself. If they could talk, Iām sure the little Piping Plovers on Lake of the Woods would agree. Unilateral decisions made elsewhere that disregard the local conditions and context of my region are neither evidence based nor respectful. Nothing about us without us.
4 Likes
I noticed a possible loophole in iNaturalist. When I looked at the status page for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker I noticed that in the areas where iNat lists it as extinct itās geoprivacy is open, which is a major problem with this species (it may or may not be found in many of the regions where it is listed as EX). Does anyone know why this is?
There is no credible evidence the species survives. In the exceptionally unlikely event an inat user has a photo of their own observation of one decades ago, there is no issue with the location being revealed.
Can someone from staff answer if collaboration with regional red books/lists is in future plans?
I do not want to spark any controversy around the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, just show the point. I am going to be assuming that any chance the IBWO has at still existing is true and that the bird persists. If someone was able to reveal a confidently identifiable image of the Ivory-bill in Louisiana then poachers could easily find and destroy any chance for the Ivory-bill to recover.
FWIWā¦ Iāve no basis to disagree with this statement on personal knowledge; still, there may be some somewhat acceptable somewhat contemporary sightings of the woodpecker:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory-billed_woodpecker#Evidence_of_persistence_past_1944
Woodpeckers and in particular this genus and its close relatives are large (this species was 60cm long), noisy, relatively easy to spot birds. They even frequent feeders. Plus they are cavity nesters which are easier to spot.
To have remained alive for the 80 plus years since a credible documented sighting they would need to have been above the minimum viable population for species survival which is likely around 500 individuals.
Not one of these expeditions or observers has managed to capture a recording or photo despite their claims of observing them. No general biodiversity evaluation or researcher studying some other taxa in the range has stumbled across one. No amateur with a camera or Facebook post of āwhat is the bird here I just sawā has taken place.
They lived in well studied, well populated areas. While I would love for there to be a different answer, the odds overwhelmingly favour the species being gone.
4 Likes
While I believe the species is ~likely~ extinct; I posted the link to Wikipedia, as it relates there are several instances that recorded some ācompellingā evidence by fairly credible witnesses. This is one of the more recent:
āGene Sparling reported seeing an ivory-billed woodpecker in Cache River National Wildlife Refuge in 2004, prompting Tim Gallagherand Bobby Harrison to investigate, who also observed a bird they identified as an ivory-billed woodpecker. An expedition led by John W. Fitzpatrick of the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology followed, which reported seven convincing sightings of an ivory-billed woodpecker. The team also heard and recorded possible double-knock and kent calls, and produced a video with four seconds of footage of a large woodpecker, which they identified as an ivory-billed woodpecker due to its size, field marks, and flight pattern.[84]The sighting was accepted by the Bird Records Committee of the Arkansas Audubon Society.[85] [The Nature Conservancy]ā
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory-billed_woodpecker#Evidence_of_persistence_past_1944
Anyhoo, if the director of Cornell Ornithology gives some credence to modern day sightings (even if not determined to be beyond a doubt), I suppose we should keep open minds.
https://cornell.app.box.com/s/ning1awlsa9xdk4eofmy9rxpj05yfm4m