US/India observations, only Indian ones showing on map

[meteorquake]

In this example -

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=any&user_id=dpegsy&verifiable=any

The map shows only a couple of plants in India, but they are mostly in the US as can be seen by their list and by clicking on them. When you hover over the US plants they do not pop up on the map as well as not being marked there.

Firefox 142.0 beta, Win11, but I’ve not seen this problem with other searches.

d

[shreedave]

I’m experiencing the same bug in Chrome too, but only for your username.

[thebeachcomber]

this is not a bug

go to one of the US observations, eg https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/307452981, and check the accuracy value. You’ll see in that example, the value is 358.97 km. Any records with an accuracy value of 30-ish km or greater are not displayed on maps in Explore

EDIT: found the precise info:

@tiwane

The Explore page map only shows observations which are mappable, that is, with public lat/lon and a location accuracy less than the diagonal of a rectangle measuring 0.2 degrees by 0.2 degrees. This is about 31 km at the equator, about 27 km at 45 degrees latitude, and about 23 km at 80 degrees latitude. (mappable also requires a few other things, like passing quality checks.)

[meteorquake]

That’s interesting.

But then I guess what about the person reporting it is occurring for my observations? as I don’t have any observations that are of low positional accuracy.

[thebeachcomber]

I think they mistook the link you posted for your own observations

[shreedave]

Sorry, I did.

[meteorquake]

Hmm… the accuracy may be related to the fact that the observations are obscured. When you look at the individual observation it does show a marker so it’s very counterintuitive that it does show it when viewed closely but not when viewed from a large distance…

[thebeachcomber]

it’s not related to the obscuration, the maximum accuracy associated with obscuration is a bit over 30 km. In these cases, the observer has added that accuracy value to their records and then also obscured them as a separate thing, but it’s the former causing them not to map

[meteorquake]

I wonder what would be the pros and cons of removing this constraint so values of low accuracy also show at least when viewed from a distance (maybe a lot of low-accuracy results are perhaps not going to be enormously out) - or if nothing else when viewing say an individual because you view an individual’s map to get a broad idea of the regions they are familiar with; although I admit it’s perhaps a bit of an unusual case, someone would have to query the data to see how often this occurs. I’m surprised it ever occurs, but then since it has maybe it occurs more than expected.