I have also seen this issue. Observers report a correction that I am not seeing on my end. I have thought about doing a bug report, but they aren’t my observations and I’ve worried about running afoul of the rule against posting problem observations. I suspect it is a syncing issue. The problem is, when I get the comment and the issue isn’t fixed, I don’t think I should update the DQA. If it is fixed later after the syncing updates, I will not get notified.
When I am reviewing casuals, aside from captive/cultivated and missing observation dates, the next most common issue I see is a DQA for inaccurate location. There are 2 scenarios:
- A really big bubble with a random central location, to which I agree with @sedgequeen’s assessment that the location of the pin is likely close to accurate.
- A central pin/location that is the default for a named place or area. For Yellowstone National Park, this location is near the West Thumb of Yellowstone Lake. The result is things like mountain goats appearing on the map at West Thumb where they do not exist.
If iNat does not want the location DQA used in these situations it would be helpful to have that in an official iNat statement - similar to the clarification for the multiple species DQA.
It would also be helpful for Explore to have a positional accuracy filter, similar to Identify. That would give end users a way to filter out observations they find annoying due to large accuracy bubbles.
I personally add comments for my DQA votes and include “Please comment if you fix it.” However, the systemic solution is observer notification of their observation becoming casual. An interesting consideration is if observers should be notified if they DQA their own observation. Mistakenly checking captive/cultivated is the most common, but I don’t think it would be good to have an annoying pop-up for checking that box.