Yeah, after I posted, I realized this was an accuracy vs. precision issue. It could be argued that the error bubble is more a measure of precision, not accuracy. Yet, people legitimately think of it as a measure of accuracy because that’s what it says on the upload form. However, the only way to assess accuracy without “account repercussions” is by the actual placement of the pin (apparently the error bubble can’t be used to assess accuracy as I thought). Right now, accuracy/precision of the measurement is left up to the observer when geoprivacy is open, but constrained when geoprivacy is obscured. Perhaps, the resolution is a feature request to constrain the size of the error bubble to the same radius provided for the obscured observations. I’m not sure, but it doesn’t seem like a huge downside to being prevented from using an error bubble that is continent sized. Then at least the observer would be more likely to consider the accuracy of their observation given the precision visual may or may not actually contain the actual location of the observation. Likewise, the identifier would more easily be able to assess accuracy given the bubble may not contain the actual location of the observation (e.g. be way way out of range for a species). True, people using the data can exclude large accuracies, but this is only true outside of iNaturalist itself meaning there is no filter to exclude out observations with location circle larger than useful purposes. In fact, there is not way to even see that until one enters an observation itself. Unlike location which pins on a map in a search, the bubble only appears within the observation making excluding observations with a location circle larger than whatever is useful extremely tedious within iNaturalist. So another solution would be a feature request to include bubble size as a filter.