Butterflies of SC, obscured taxa
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?project_id=229492&taxon_geoprivacy=obscured
Produces
Both were incorrectly IDd by observer, and are shown as Maverick (not visible on Android app). So even though the IDs have been corrected, they are shown as taxa obscured.
Neither should be obscured.
I may not be fully understanding the issue you’re describing, but maybe the observations were obscured purposefully because the uploader didn’t want to provide exact locations rather than because of the species ID?
No, these were taxa obscured, (not user obscured) and is done automatically by iNaturalist for generally endangered species. Both species are common and none of the other observations of these species are TAXA_OBSCURED.
Ah, gotcha. I was aware that happened, but misread your initial post (and couldn’t quite tell from the images). Not sure why that is still lingering.
If even one ID is for an obscured taxon, the observation will be obscured. This is intentional and is to prevent circumventing the obscuration algorithm.
I dont believe that either of the original taxa are endangered or would normally be taxa obscured!
Comment withdrawn
Both Papilio brevicauda and Zerene eurydice are obscured globally. If you don’t think they should be, you can discuss that in a flag on the taxon.
There is no way to unobscure the observations while they still have active IDs of obscured taxa.
P. brevicauda is not taxa obscured
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?taxon_id=154436
The Zerene is
P. brevicauda is globally obscured, but open only in Canada. The observation you showed (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/152461345) is not in Canada, thus it has its location obscured.
Ok, just so im clear, anyone can suggest an ID of an endangered species to ANY observation and it becomes taxa_obscured? Even if it was research grade?
Thanks for your help, but I really think this isn’t the best way to do this. At least I now know.
The alternative is that one person can suggest an obscured taxon and three bad actors (or one bad actor with two sockpuppet accounts) can get the true location by suggesting unobscured taxa. I think most people feel like the more conservative approach (i.e. the current approach) is better, but it’s certainly ok to disagree.
If you think someone has a pattern of abusing the obscuring system by intentionally suggesting false IDs, please contact help@inaturalist.org.
I don’t recall ever seeing this written up anywhere, but I was VERY confused to see two common species shown as taxa obscured. Especially since i have other observations of the same two species that aren’t obscured.
Because of the way the underlying search works, it’s probably clearer to think of this as a list of observations which are obscured due to the taxon, rather than as a list of taxa which will have their observations obscured.
Not sure if others won’t get confused though. What happens if the offending IDer deletes their ID? Does it go away?
yes it does (or if it’s withdrawn)
Which obs is ‘labelled Maverick’?
Do you mean the Pre-Maverick project?
That has no connection to obscuring a taxon, or an obs.
Look very closely at the screenshots of the two observations above - both have a lightning bolt and Maverick on pink background for the first ID. Only visible on web.
It appears that a single observation can in fact be labeled as taxa obscured if someone IDs it as a vulnerable species. Both of the observations above were initially IDd as vulnerable species and popped up in my search even though the correct ID was later provided.
Thats the puzzling thing - how did the observers come up with those IDs? Did iNaturalist suggest them back then? I just checked and reasonable IDs are now suggested. Odd.
@Jwidness explained it above.
You said - not sure how they got labelled Maverick?
In your screenshot - 3 against 1 Maverick.
Gotcha - my mistake. I get it now. Took me awhile. I saw a connection where none existed. 
