On maps, the circles that become upside-down tear-drop shapes when fully zoomed in only have a selectable area that comprises about the lower-right 1/4 of the circle and sometimes that selection area disappears entirely until you zoom in or out. This can make it difficult to click on the point. The upside-down teardrops have a very small selection area also which seems positioned just to the right of them. The close boxes seem to be misaligned at times also. It would make it easier if the entire circle were clickable and the teardrops had a larger selection area as well.
Also, on 75x75 thumbnail images, such as on the copyright info page for any given image, or in your own IDs page for the thumbnails of observations youâve already IDâd, only the top about 1/3 of the image is clickable. This isnât true for the thumbnail for that entire speciesâ profile to the right of it, however. The thumbnails on maps also function fully sometimes, then partly in other circumstances. It seems if you go to a map via âobserveâ they seem to work, but the maps under a taxonâs profile page have this same issue, except the top â of the thumbnail is selectable and the bottom Âź, and also sometimes (but not always) just the very center of the thumbnail. Hereâs an example: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/984457-Pione-lampa drop down to the map and select one of the points, now try to click on its thumbnail in the pop-up dialogue box. You can see some parts of the thumbnail are selectable, and others arenât.
thatâs interesting. it looks like the observer and date fields in the pop-up are maybe extending over the photo and preventing it from being selected. the same problem seems to exist in the Identify screen map, since it seems to use the same kind of pop-up as the taxon screen. the problem does not seem to exist in the Explore screen, since that page seems to use a different kind of pop-up.
the observer and date fields might also be related to the problem on the photo detail pages.
this may be related to and may become moot as a result of the effort to replace the gray circles with a square grid. see https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/open-test-of-map-tile-improvements/7833. in the latest post there, iâve noted some similar misalignment between the cells and the clickable areas.
i see this occasionally. usually, i find that if i wait a bit, the markers will eventually become clickable. the way the clickability of the maps is actually implemented is the tiled marker images are loaded as one layer over a basemap, and then an invisible tiled UTFgrid layer is loaded on top of that. so when you click, youâre actually interacting with the UTFgrid, not with the marker layer. sometimes the marker layer is loaded and visible before the UTFgrid has fully loaded. so (some of) the markers may appear as if they are unclickable until their corresponding UTFgrid tile has loaded.
It seems to be most, if not all of them, if Iâm not mistaken. Their selection area is just very small in general, so I wouldnât be surprised if the pixels you can hit are just a bit off center.
I just tried and itâs definitely doing it. If I zoom all the way into the first level of upside-down teardrop shaped points, I can easily have the point selectable with my cursor entirely to the right of the point by about 2 mm. But if I try to go left of about mid-way through the tear-drop shape, it becomes unselectable.
below is a visualization for the points (pins + obscured circles), where the points are in green and the clickable area is in red. note that i think the pins (the upside down teardrops) in the actual iNaturalist maps are shifted down a bit so that you can click on the fat end of the pin instead the point of the pin. from what i can tell, the clickable areas match up pretty well with the obscured circle markers, and if you shift the pins down slightly, they appear to match up pretty well with the red clickable area, too. every once in a while (particularly when the clickable area is arranged as more of a plus sign than a square), you might encounter something that might not be totally in line, but i think itâs a function of the need to approximate the non-square markers with a set of square cells. so, again, i generally donât see a problem with the pins.
