Has there been any discussion of using the National Topographic System (NTS) 1:50 000 grid as the default display for iNat data in Canada?
For context: the NTS maps all of Canada and divides the country into 1:50 000 scale squares. The squares are identified by a unique letter/number combination (e.g. 15VP56) and my understanding is the average size of the squares is about 10 km x 10 km. These squares are already used for citizen science projects like the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas.
With the consent of users, iNat.ca could be configured to publicly display all records for all species at this 1:50 000 output scale. The actual location data could continue to be recorded as it always has, with the existing privacy options for users - including sharing of obscured/private co-ordinates. Researchers who want access to precise co-ordinates could still obtain this with user consent.
The beauty of this solution is that it renders the (massively-complicated) geoprivacy debate moot. If all species are publicly displayed at the same 1:50 000 scale, then all species receive some protection. Users can add more if they wish, but no-one needs to be concerned that a given species has less protection than is warranted. Thereās also no issue with rogue operators making changes to species geoprivacy that affects public output.
If the primary goal of iNat is to encourage users to interact with nature, and the secondary goal is to accumulate useful scientific data about nature, then using the NTS grid for public display of all observations would be a sensible compromise between those goals.
Now, of course, I have no idea what the technical/programming impact of this would beā¦but if it is possible to obscure the location of some records some of the time, it should be possible to take this further. Experienced users could help by adding the six-character NTS tag to their records when they are uploaded.
The site has replied in previous requests, not this specific one they will not add any coordinate systems other than the existing lat/long.
Additionally, places are barring a major redesign a massive burden on site performance. 10 million square kilometers divided divided into 100 square kilometer grids is a huge number of places (yes before someone points out the number, the entire country is not mapped at this scale, so I donāt know the exact number of squares)
I think that this is a great idea, and Iām sure that the process issue can be resolved. Moving to a list based on targeted thinking is far superior to dumping all the inconsistent CDC lists together. Rarely does that sort of uncritical pathway lead to success.
Hi Everyone,
A late update, but we now have a rudimentary list of what would be changing that @cmcheatle was asking about. This shows what is currently obscured in iNat and if it will be updated to open or remain obscured, it also shows what will be updated to obscured if it was previously open. Youāll see why I say rudimentary when looking at the caveats as this is a working document, but it should give lots to go on for this process. With over 5000 records, you may understand why we thought it simpler to give a list of just the proposed species to remain obscured. We were also hesitant because we didnāt want people (thinking perhaps more general users) to see a list and think that a species so should stay obscured just because it was obscured in the past.
Here are a few important caveats on this:
The list is NOT final since it is based on the initial STPH list we had posted to the forum. It therefore does not include any additions people (including CDCs) have made since.
It most likely contains some errors as this was generated by pulling data from NatureServe Canadaās biotics database and each record has not been checked individually.
There could be records missing due to human error or some elimination process from other work on this list and several versions over the months
There are some inactive records on here that are being worked through
There are some instances where information is missing because the taxon crosswalk from biotics to iNaturalist has not been fully finished
Common names are not included. They werenāt part of the working document so the work to bring them in is not a simple process. Weāre hoping that those who find such a list useful will be comfortable enough with scientific names.
As mentioned initially, this is a working document and a download from the most recent draft.
Weāre also realizing this is being presented five days before our proposed deadline for feedback of May 17th. If you would like more time with this, pleas let us know. We donāt want to rush this at the expense of getting important feedback and making this list as good as we possibly can.
Weāll also be putting this on the Obscured Species page in the help section of iNaturalist.ca where the dashboard announcement on the site links to, to help broaden the input.
When are you proposing to look at and integrate (or at least formally reject) the suggestions already done on the prior spreadsheet.
Itās frankly unbelievable to look at this and the very first thing I check which is Barn Owl, which might be one of the top 5 species in Canada needing protection still listed as being opened. Despite the commentary above, despite the suggestion already entered on the spreadsheet etc.
The first important caveat I mentioned is that the spreadsheet that I linked to is not final and is the original STPH list we posted to the forum. We are not able to evaluate and update the community suggested additions in real time, rather provided what was asked for and showed the proposed changes before we receive feedback from the community so that people can propose changes to it. We know the list indicates Barn Owl as becoming open,but it is currently obscured in Canada and will remain that way until we finalize this list. It is not reasonable for us to be updating this one species at a time. It makes more sense operationally to do this at all at once when we have received everyoneās feedback, then provide an updated list for comment. To be open to everyoneās opinion I would like to provide the opportunity for people to comment until the deadline, even on the obvious species, to be inclusive and fair rather than making a decision before everyone has had their chance to comment.
Our original timeline was a deadline of May 17 for community feedback. At that point we were going to review and provide an updated list (before we initiate any changes on the site). If this timeline is not adequate, weāre happy to take the time it needs to accommodate.
Iām going to be very blunt here, you want to flag me, or suspend my account here or on the main site, so be it.
You previously communicated above a change to early June. Now it has been changed to May 17th with 5 days notice.
There is no evidence at all you have even reviewed the feedback already given by users. Questions and requests here for updates have gone unanswered for weeks.
Where is the improved communication plan you promised to make sure as many Canadian users as possible?
Itās not about the barn owl, its about a process that does not even seem to recognize some of the most at risk species in the country.
Do whatever you want with the data. Iām out of this discussion. Iāve withdrawn my affiliation from the .ca portal and will be obscuring all my records going forward and encouraging every user I know to do the same. Iām also formally requesting any of my data you have previously collected be deleted from your systems.
Firstly, I want to assure everyone that no one is going to be flagged or removed for providing feedback, commentary, or suggestions on this process. We intentionally opened this up to the community to be more transparent and to invite comment and would never āpunishā someone for engaging.
Citizen Science data is evolving and so is conservation initiatives taking advantage of that data. This is an ongoing living process that we all learn from and adapt to. From a conservation perspective we want to make sure this data is useful for science, while still being protected. From a citizen science user perspective we want to make sure community engagement as at the forefront. There will always be disagreements on how best to āmanageā this data. Not many, if any, other portals have begun this process so we are pioneering the way for many others. They can learn from our mistakes and our successes and we will continue to evolve our process when needed.
To specifically address the concern of timelines. We did not change the timeline. It is mentioned in bold on the iNat.ca getting started pages that James linked to in his March 16th comment. The deadline is not June for feedback but June for the earliest time frame that the actual changes will take place. A deadline to provide feedback by May 17th will allow us to review the list and post an updated version before the actual changes take place (possibly in June though no date is set). As James mentioned though, it took awhile to get the list of changes that he posted today ready and so we realize that we may need to extend the deadline for feedback.
Of course we are monitoring the suggestions received on the spreadsheet and through internal communications - which I have added to the spreadsheet. What James posted today is a much more in depth look at what could change than the editable version with only proposed obscured species. It does not show all the new suggestions because the deadline for feedback has not yet been reached. Rest assured they will all be reviewed, decisions made and communicated and another version posted before changes go live.
We are trying to communicate these changes to all Canadian users through notices, and additional text in the getting started pages and elsewhere. Additionally banners or pop-up messages are being looked into as a way to capture peoples attention. These are hard for us to implement as they must go through iNaturalist.org staff. If you have suggestions for better ways to engage and āspread the wordā so-to-speak please donāt hesitate to reach out.
Nobody expects you to respond within the hour, but neither should they expect weeks to pass without even acknowledgment of questions/feedback either. Responding to and engaging with the people trying to help here would be a good sign. People started adding feedback to your spreadsheet the day you posted it, and never received even a comment noting it had been seen and was under consideration. Questions and requests for input go unanswered for weeks. And then we get told we have 4.5 days to give feedback, including what is likely the biggest field naturalist weekend in Canada (peak bird migration)
Itās not about if the Barn Owl is obscured or not.
Its about a process that:
developed an initial list with glaring holes in it
forces us to waste everyoneās time and focus dealing with what should be slam dunk decisions over and over again rather than trying to deal with legitimately tough choices about other taxa
and most importantly a process so lacking in engagement with the people you are asking to provide input to
Thank you everyone for all the input - critical, constructive and helpful.
We have taken what people have added as well as those that had been added in this thread but not to the list and will be reviewing it with local experts over the next week(s). We will be seeking additional feedback from the CDCs and want to provide enough time before we put out a new list, so I canāt say exactly when that will be, but I anticipate roughly two weeks.
From preliminary conversations, a majority of the suggestions provided will be incorporated.
This should fix the holes of the initial list and we will post and announce again to allow a final look for anyone interested in commenting further.
Once we have incorporated those last comments, we will announce on iNaturalist one month ahead of changes to allow people to make changes to any of their observations if they wish.
The following species (which is not a comprehensive one, just the ones I have found so far) are globally obscured on iNat. As such the all records submitted will be obscured regardless of what is entered for Canadian jurisdictions.
The status of obscured should either be entered for all Canadian records to harmonize and remove confusion, or any listing as open removed.
Thank you for this. Yes it is definitely confusing that these two lists are not harmonized. And youāre right that there are likely many more. I wouldnāt want us to not obscure something thatās globally obscured, thinking itās covered, because the global one can change, so the suggestion to consider both is a good one.
The difficulty is that some of the globally obscured species are ones weād not want or need to be obscuring in Canada. And this global list will change over time so Iād prefer to have our Canadian list mostly static (with minor changes as needed), once we have a final version, and work to bring the global list in line with that.
Updating the geoprivacy for the global list for observations just within Canada is a tedious process and currently requires editing a taxon one by one. Weāre putting thought into this as a next step and at the end of the day may require us to do this one by one. We may be able to cross check this with the export we get from iNat.org but it will be best for us to look at that once we get a more current export since things may have changed since the one from last winter.
Iād be happy to hear opinions on all this, though.
My 2 cents, Canada should focus on the taxon geoprivacy settings that are most appropriate within Canada (i.e., the outcome of the process being pursued here), without reference to what (if any) global taxon geoprivacy settings may currently be in place. The global settings are separate issues that should be flagged separately on the taxa in question if they donāt appear to be appropriate on a global basis. (Conflict with Canadian or other more local settings being one kind of evidence that the global settings may be inappropriate.) As long as Canadaās settings are appropriate for Canada, then they are in place and ready whenever any conflicting global geoprivacy issues get resolved.
Just a quick update to let you all know that weāre working on the review of this updated list. We have input from most CDCs and other experts, notably some thorough and helpful response from NHIC (Ontario CDC). We are aiming to put out a new list for review in a week or two, including announcing on iNaturalist.ca for all users and an email to everyone affiliated with iNat.ca (we donāt have access to email other users). This will allow one last look at the list before we announce the changes are coming. When we announce those changes, weāll provide users time and directions on making adjustments to their observations if they desire. Iād happy to hear thoughts on how long users might need for those adjustments - two, three, four weeks?
Hello everyone,
Itās been a bit longer time coming but we now have an updated list of species that will be automatically obscured in Canada. Remember that the global iNaturalist obscuring based on the IUCN Red List still applies. In some cases, species on that list have already been curated to be open in all or parts of Canada. Weād like to bring the two in sync but that requires manually curating each species so this will take some time.
This STPH list is still not a final list as we want to be sure to hear from everyone before we give notice of the final one. So please feel free to review a last time and provide comments or additions, should you feel the need to. We will be posting an announcement on iNaturalist.ca as well as sending an email to all users who have affiliated with iNaturalist.ca and allowing two weeks for feedback from the time of posting (so people on this forum thread have a bit more time, since the announcement isnāt up yet). You can have a look at the updated STPH list here.
After those two weeks, we will look at comments and additions then once we have a final list, I will post again in this thread, an announcement on iNat.ca and an email to inform users of the changes. It will provide three weeks for people to make changes to their observations should they feel the need, before we start to implement the updated list. It will take a week or so to finish implementing that list so it wonāt happen instantaneously.
Looking forward to hearing feedback and finalizing this!
Thank you everyone for the input, very valuable critique and time.
This proposed list is a very satisfactory, reasonable compromise. Endangered Piping Plovers nesting on Lake of the Woods get the protection they need. Observation details of Great Gray Owls in the vast, sparsely-populated wilderness of Northwestern Ontario are not needlessly suppressed.
I am not in Canada but in Vermont on your border. I am sad to see black ash on the list which is threatened by EAB not poaching (yanking up ash trees?) . Weāve done a lot of work parsing out the microhabitat needs of black ash here in Vermont, as we are expecting to lose pretty much all of it to EAB and this would be really valuable info for restoring the species if thereās ever a resistant strain. Is this something youād be open to not obscuring? I know this all may not apply to Quebec anyway, but itās just frustrating to see something with no poaching risk obscured when so many people are working on mapping the species in advance of an invasive insect pest.
Black maple seems bizarre to obscure too given itās also a large tree and in this case most people who arenāt botanists would just assume itās a slightly odd looking sugar maple. Hard to imagine any harassment risk of a maple tree.
Thanks!
Interesting. I am aware the plant is used by many indigenous cultures, but had never heard here of other people trying to poach it or that even cared about the species at all. But that being the case iāll withdraw my objection to that one in that provence, though itās sad that it has to happen (it has really interesting habitat needs and iām trying to parse its distribution out here). NB is pretty far from us anyway. The species seems to be very common in Ontario though, would it be obscured there too?