The location of obscured observations can always be narrowed down to the smallest place iNaturalist create.
e.g. Our state butterfly group keeps species list by county [these are created by iNaturalist] so even if obscured, we still know at least which county they were found in. I created a project for them with filters by county. Thats valuable enough. Maybe do likewise using the smallest places in the UK.
This sounds like a pretty harsh criticism of eBird, which literally collects millions of bird records without requiring photos or recordings, and has been wildly successful at collecting useful data. Also posting “I saw a bear today” and posting a picture of said bear clearly both equally represent someone connecting with nature- whether they managed to get a photo or not seems pretty irrelevant as to what connection they had. I’ve kept track of all sorts of critters I saw when I didn’t have a camera using iNat.
I obscure out of habit, I have several properties that I am allowed access (friends and family) but are not public. I have in the past found endangered species on said properties and instead of spreading out uploading things so that it is harder to track where I was I just obscure everything. I also frequently observe things that take longer to ID down to species and one of those took a while to ID and it was an endangered species (again) and after that I decided to obscure just to be safe.
Also I have found that the computer doesn’t obscure to the point that is it impossible to use the Geo location as a determining factor.
Edit: I also accept that obscuring can slow my ID process. Really I’m possibly overcautious because noone wants to poach the soil lichens or tiny insects I love but I also typically observe things in areas where the wide range of “obscured” doesn’t impact the distribution, I am also willing to share more info if people ask.
I obscure many of my observations from Hong Kong. I’m often going quite literally off the beaten track to look for orchids and other unusual plants - falling under the OP’s “vulnerable taxa” category. Even if I don’t find anything “interesting” on an outing, I don’t necessarily want to attract attention to the places I’ve been exploring. Hong Kong is a very small place with island geography, and unusual flora tends to be concentrated in restricted pockets of land. I’ve seen the negative impact of disturbance to sites by photographers keen to get a shot when a rare or unusual species has been spotted and the location leaked, and I don’t want to contribute to that. I have noticed a number of HK-based Inatters have a practice of obscuring too. While I realise that obscuring observations degrades the quality of the data, I feel that simply making a HK record of a little-observed species within the territory is already helpful, given its small land area, and I’d be more than happy to share further information to researchers if needed.
Privacy concerns often spread outside of one’s private domicile. People will vary their daily routines and even morning commute routes for privacy reasons. The path they were on when they observed a taxa is no different. The reasons for wanting privacy range from simple comfort to the presence of actual hazards.
Well, it’s quite amusing to find that my little bit of satire got sent to the naughty corner. Never mind. I’ll take it as a backhanded compliment 
Carpets of the world unite! 
I can’t purport to know anything about a stranger’s experience navigating this world, but some people who want to engage in nature are doing something riskier than others when they put themselves out there publicly, both simply walking out the front door, or posting photos on a site as seemingly innocuous as iNat.
There are many factors that might make it more dangerous for someone to simply exist in public spaces. Gender, disability status, age, location, skin color, etc. etc. Some people generally don’t have to worry about being followed home, stalked on the internet, cat-called, or harassed when they go outside, but others have ample experience with these things.
People who take steps to protect their privacy and safety still have a right to exist in public spaces. They have a right to go outside and engage with nature. They have a right to post on a site that is meant to help connect individuals to nature.
Last fall, I was photographing birds at a local park when a man came up and started following me, very closely. He started talking about my camera and wildlife photography, which is a conversation I’m always willing to have, but then he was getting too close. Like bumping against me close, reaching out and touching my arm. He told me he wanted me to come to his house nearby to see his lenses. (yeah) When I told him, flat out, “No, thank you,” he told me he’d give me some of his old camera equipment and we could “just” have some hot beverages and talk more, and reached out and grabbed my arm twice. I’d long-since stopped photographing anything and was just trying to get back to the road. It was cold and drizzly and no one else was around. He followed me all the way out of the park and then watched as I walked towards the public shopping area. I can’t drive, so I wanted to go somewhere public and call a ride share service.
Was that guy likely to know about iNat or eBird where I post my photos and checklists, and seek me out there? Probably not. But he could find out my online identity pretty easily through those platforms by knowing what time and location he encountered me, and he did show a knowledge of birding and wildlife photography when he started up the conversation. From there, anyone determined could find out my habitual locations and routes if I didn’t obscure them.
This is far from the first encounter that I’ve had like that. I often hear “well, maybe he was just awkward” comments trivializing experiences like that, but awkward doesn’t mean not dangerous. Someone not stopping at no is not just awkward.
Although others have pointed out that there’s no obligation for scientific usefulness in posting to iNat, I’d like to point out that location is not the only useful data someone can get from an observation, anyway. It’s not junk data or useless regardless.
I do understand some organisms can’t be IDed when the accuracy of the location is too large (two of the organisms I identify most frequently are location-dependent), but identity to genus isn’t useless information, either. So many other organisms can be identified to species regardless of location being obscured.
I’m pretty sure it’s not necessary to have a public location to train the CV for a new organism. I don’t think it’s even always necessary for it to be a wild animal; if I’m not mistaken some of the fish the CV can recognize were trained mostly on captive individuals in aquariums. (Correct me if I’m wrong, please!)
Precise location is not necessary when someone is browsing the RG observations to learn to identify an organism themselves, or for art references, or a CC image to illustrate a Wiki article or use in an informational brochure. I’m not a research scientist, so I can’t speak on how the data might be useful without precise location, but I can’t imagine there’s no use for obscured observations at all. And if it did make it useless, what would be the point of having any threatened organism posted to iNat, since they’re obscured by default? So many other naturalist sites that are incredibly useful don’t even have the option to input a precise location down to coordinates.
As with others, I obscure all observations made in my immediate neighborhood (which includes several parks) and friends’ neighborhoods for privacy reasons, whether it’s a dandelion or a mountain lion (well, I haven’t seen one here yet, but they have been seen in this suburb). If someone wants to know the location of a certain observation, I do have a note in my profile to DM me about it.
Thank you so much for articulating all of that! I’ve been having very similar thoughts.
Personally, I trust people to assess their privacy and needs in this regard. If someone feels that it’s not safe to post observations without obscuring them, I assume they’re the expert on their life and their environment.
And also, at the same time, even if people are completely wrong about their need to obscure their location, having the ability to choose to obscure means that more people are comfortable using the platform in the first place.
So, even if you disagree with everyone’s reasons, just having the option is a very pragmatic way to collect more observations from people who otherwise would not participate, or would participate less. And some of those observations will have some use.
Sorry to get off-topic, but this is easily the greatest comment I’ve ever read in a thread like this. Ever.
When I first read it I nodded in agreement because it makes a valid point, and then I read it again and laughed out loud because of how well it was written. Accomplishing both is 
I loved this comment too, and I had an urge to explain the pop culture to younger viewers, but joking around is frowned upon here, so I just liked Rick’s comment to show support, and smiled to myself!
Before I begin, I agree with what you comment ultimately is getting at.
However, I this particular point’s wording is a little iffy. Admittedly, this is partially because the point it is referring to was also questionably written.
True, technically, a strong wind can easily blow a moth 20 kilometers (about 12.4 miles), and often much further. Tiny species like “moth flies” or the newly hatched larvae of gypsy moths (which use silk to catch the breeze) have been documented being carried several kilometers by the wind. A sustained gale or storm front can carry a lightweight adult insect 20 kilometers before it manages to land or drops from exhaustion. In short, if you found a moth far outside its usual habitat after a windy night, it is plausible that the wind carried it there. That said, users who are proclaimed dedicated moth identifiers would know this (one would/should hope).
What this means is that being within 20km is perfectly satisfactory to know the expected species for an area and most people that are of the opinion that making location the crucial identifying feature between similar species consistently is always controversial at best, flat out disregarding vagrants at worst. I know just enough to understand moth ID operates on a sliding scale where both visuals and geography rely heavily on one another. On one another, note I didn’t say only one one not the other. Therefore, 20km should usually be sufficient. Specific micro-habitats within that 20km range (e.g., a swamp vs. a pine forest) do often matter greatly to a moth’s lifestyle, but identifiers usually infer this context if they know the general region. This is the work flow I’ve seen from identifiers that balance charity and experiance. Then again, as established, strong winds regularly displace moths by 20km or more. Said identifiers are well aware that insects travel, so a 20km radius easily captures the plausible range of an individual insect. So, for moths that do not require microscopy, someone adding photos from multiple angles are all that is needed, and a 20km location radius is perfectly fine.
So far everything I’ve said is agreeing with your comment. This is where the wording gets patching for me. You imply this is why their comment is wrong, but really it is just making a different valid point. The user is saying they won’t do it because it doesn’t add to their personal knowledge not because they cannot identify it, which unfortunately is somewhat true.
I would hope the commenter would understand identifiers usually identify to help others and then help themselves via knowledge gained or skills practiced, etc. Helping someone is not something to be ignored just because you don’t see greater benefit (even though it is present in said case). Of course, iNat would never force anyone to identify what they don’t want to, but I personally would hope one would embrace a chance to help someone and or foster an appreciation for nature with open arms. Off or on iNat I think if you have the opportunity to help someone you should try.
I’m a freshman in high school and I got the implications (;
From what I understand “pop culture” usually refers to the widespread references and media that are commonly understood by the general public, especially the younger generations, and considering the comment was spoken in such a way, I would’ve thought it would have been such.
However, now that you’ve made the comment, I believe I may be missing something…
Still, it was great without it, which just makes it even better.
A quick search on YouTube will give you the relevant context from In Living Color season 1 (1990). New to me too but definitely worth the 5-minute viewing,
I see, thanks. I guess it really is the comment that keeps on giving 
David Newton was saying that such observations should not be allowed on the site, which is what most people were taking issue with, not just that they personally don’t identify those, which most users would be perfectly fine with, I presume.
Yes, David Newton was saying that. The user my comment was regarding never said such a thing. That is why I I said rhoman’s comment was technically true, implying it is perfectly fine as you said. All rhoman was saying was that (in his workflow/opinion) they would get ignored.
Your comment was a reply to s-e, who in turn was replying to David, no? You do also quote rhoman, but this is after the paragraph of yours we are talking about.
First of all, I acknowledge not being able to backcheck the flag comments that I thought I read, which could have led me into error. I’m sorry if this is wrong because of that. This is a confusing thread asking for misinterpretations because of said replies, but I still don’t think this is the case though.
Yes, I was replying to s-e, and yes, he was replying to David. However, at the end of this post, s-e says:
Implying some other user was making a comment about moths, and now he is addressing it as he added it after his comment replying to David. I don’t think multiple users made points specifically about identifying moths in this one thread.
I’m not really disagreeing with s-e anyway; he made great points. I just thought the last one had room for improvement.
sorry, think I lost thread of the conversation a bit, that makes sense
I generally obscure plant species that are at risk of poaching by ethically challenged lurkers. Orchids, with a few exceptions, get obscured unless they’re in a place that is a well-known orchid hotspot with some measure of protection. The same approach applies to nesting birds.
I have given access to obscured observations to people who can make a case for having a reason. Government agency folks and academics with relevant specializations generally just have to ask and if they check out I give them what they need. If memory serves, I think I gave the location of some plants to an activist. Anyway, requests don’t happen very often.
On the question of whether there is value to media-free observations I agree with those who have argued for wide latitude in how users employ iNat. Alienation from nature is a serious obstacle to conservation and iNat’s clearly stated mission to connect people to nature is at least as worthy of support as generation of data.