I want to share my bird observations with Ebird or vice-versa

[David Remsen]

I like the broad scope of iNat for all my observations but I also like some of the features and focus of eBird.  I am not interested in trying to manage parallel entries into both systems.  Surely there must be a way to share observations across platforms.  Preferably there would be a GUID assigned as a common identifier for both versions.   Has this come up before?   I'm happy to help broker such a thing.

[Ken-ichi]

Hey David,

Well, eBird could implement something like that on their end using our
API: http://www.inaturalist.org/pages/developers. However, their API
(https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/CLOISAPI/eBird+API+1.1)
doesn't seem to support any form of authorization or write
functionality, so we couldn't really write data from iNat to eBird. I
could be missing something here, since I haven't explored their API
too much.

We also have slightly different data models at present, since they
focus on checklists and we focus on observations, so that would also
make an eBird-to-iNat flow work a bit better than an iNat-to-eBird
flow.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "iNaturalist" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Mike Fox]

Great questioni David.  I've thought the very same thing since so many folk are heavily in eBird.  I understand Ken's point but think it worthwhile to explore further between the two parties.  

Just my two-cents worth.  

[David Remsen]

Ken-ichi,

I think it's worth further exploration too but it would be useful to know if there is any degree of interest.  There are many features of eBird, such as their rare bird alerts, that warrant my adding observations to my eBird account.  While it is true that eBird is checklist-oriented, I quite often submit checklists consisting of a single observation.  Conversely, the Add a Batch of Observations feature isn't all that far from a checklist oriented approach and I can imagine some use-cases for myself where I wouldn't mind retrieving a batch of observations as a unit later on, implying the utility some sort of batch (or event or checklist)  identifier.

Given that iNat observations are shared through GBIF, is there already some sort of GUID assigned to your records or at least a possible case that would warrant it?  That would be a first step?  

If further exploration is of interest I am happy to contribute in any way.  I know Steve Kelling from my GBIF work and could introduce the concept.  The notion of shared occurrence records is one that warrants wider attention in general, I think, particularly by the likes of GBIF where a single observation may be indexed from multiple sources and must be detected by tedious and error-prone algorithm.

regards,

David

[Ken-ichi]

Definitely interested. We don't assign strict GUIDs to everything
(mostly just mobile observations), but we could start. We could also
very easily support LSID resolution for LSIDs like
lsid:inaturalist:observations:332087. GBIF uniquely identifies
everything with a triplet of institutionCode, collectionCode,
catalogNumber, which we could also provide. I've always preferred URIs
that are also URLs as unique identifiers, though.

Uniquely identifying records is less of a problem then shared user
authentication and authorization, IMO. If eBird is interested in just
our data we could certainly provide that, but if we want to build
something where that data gets linked to accounts owned by the same
people on both systems, either they need to build it using our
authorization system, or they need to build auth into their API and we
could build the sharing.

[BJ Stacey]

I thought I would weigh in on this since I am a big eBird advocate.  I really don't want my sightings linked between the two sights.  I use eBird for all species that I see or hear whereas I only us iNaturalist for observations that can become research grade (some sort of media needed).  I know that iNaturalist isn't designed to require media and that not everyone uses the same way that I do. It does take time to hit both systems with my observations but I find that is my preference. by using BirdLog I find that there isn't much time used entering checklist on eBird any longer and that allows me to focus almost all of my other time on iNaturalist and BAMONA (I would really like to see this one linked with iNat).

Having this media attached is what makes iNaturalist have a much higher degree of accuracy for research purposes than eBird.  Yes, even with photos that clearly show the species I have many observations that aren't yet research grade but over time perhaps someone will come in and take the time to review those observations.  Many taxa simply don't yet have many users reviewing observations but I hope that changes over time.

I can see problems with the linking of the two systems.  eBird allows a checklist for any distance (though they prefer it kept under 5 miles) and iNaturalist wants a much more precise location (though that too can be very large). This is probably the largest one that I foresee.

I would assume that if a bridge is built between the two systems that I could opt out of it by not connecting my accounts.

BJ Stacey

[David Remsen]

BJ,  I appreciate your response and perspective.  I would assume any linking feature would be entirely optional.   I hadn't heard of BAMONA and your example, and a desire to coordinate your lep observations with it, reinforces a larger issue of interoperability.  While I have a rationale for linking to eBird you have a similar interest in BAMONA.  It would be worth exploring specifically what the rationale is this across these different cases.  As more observation repositories become available I imagine that the incentive to store ones data there will be based increasingly on services that use the data and less on the data storage feature itself.  In such a ecosystem I might find it of value to push my data around to different systems to utilize these different features.  Any of these may in turn, wish to pass my observations onto other data aggregators such as GBIF or BISON in which case proper GUIDs are really useful.

The comment on "research-grade" quality also presents a useful perspective.  I would surmise that eBird considers at least some of their observations to be of 'research-grade' although I find it a bit difficult to concisely define what this might mean.   While there is no specific data field for providing a photograph,  I sometimes link to the same Flickr photo in eBird that I use for iNat.  I am often contacted by a regional eBird curator when an unusual sighting is reported and I feel they do a good job verifying reports.  I can't say, however, if these data are stored as annotations to the sighting.  I'd hope so.

Like me, you appear to see value in some degree of interoperability among different systems and an interest in more efficient means to enter data into them.

Best,

David

[David Remsen]

Ken,

Thank you for your reply.  I am with you on the use or resolvable URIs.   I'm not such a fan of LSIDs.  They seemed to be a big deal for a time but, with a few exceptions, were not heavily adopted.  In some cases where they have been adopted I don't think they have been properly curated and many are either broken or do not resolve to anything meaningful.  This latter bit is not, of course, a problem with the technology but I believe that greater adoption and uptake would probably drive improved curation.  The triplet supported by GBIF was a necessary adoption given the use of this as a de-facto standard for collections but it's problematic because collections move and catalogNumbers are not always stable.

The post of BJ Stacey is useful to demonstrate a (possibly) wider interest in inter-operability and the possibility of the need for a more generalized solution.  I don't know the best answer but I do know that I am fundamentally lazy and, while I want the good stuff you and eBird and others might provide, I am not going to spend too much time replicating my observations to get it.   I don't see the value in eBird or iNat having to complete for users.  The question is are users more like BJ, and willing to enter data twice or, lazy (and busy) like me and only willing to record all this once.

best,

David

[Dave Spier]

I'm an eBird fanatic, but it's difficult to add photos to eBird checklists, and with recent changes to Picasaweb, it seems impossible, but I'm probably missing something. I reserve my flickr account for my better photos, not my usually-distant or less-than-spectacular bird ID shots. Anyway, it's MUCH easier to add photos on iNat, and I like iNat's very-specific GPS map for each observation. eBird is my first go-to for checklists, but I will duplicate some entries useful to iNat Projects I manage or joined or for Places where I'm building a general list of species observed. I sometimes use duplicate entries in iNat for life birds when I have a photo, but this work is usually saved for the winter when I'm not behind on entering eBird data, like from our recent camping trip which is why I'm just now adding my reply to this discussion. (I don't have a smartphone or BirdLog.)

[Charlie Hohn]

As a non e-bird user, I do haev a small worry that the home page will be absolutely flooded when people put up their huge checklists... not a huge deal but potentially annoying.  I usually filter for plants anyway. On a similar note the current map setup might have trouble with such a heavy influx of data, if a lot of people did that (right now it only shows the most recent 200 I think, so it wouldn't be as good for range maps and such). I know there are plans for possible changes to how the maps display though.

[krancmm]

Hello,

Not an e-birder, but interested in the discussion of linking (one-way) FROM other "specialty" science-oriented sites to iNaturalist.

I joined iNaturalist last year and submitted one observation.  It already had photographs, date/time, geocode, and behavior/weather/plant association observations, all submitted and vetted to species level by BAMONA (Butterflies and Moths of North America).  When I realized how much work it took, and what a waste of time, to re-enter all the same info on iNaturalist, I never submitted another observation...

I also submit to OdonataCentral (dragonflies and damselflies) and Bugguide (for new state-level species or dates).

All three sites require photos, dates,geographical info; most importantly, they have expert vetters, many of whom "wrote the book" on their area of expertise.

I would like to have already vetted observations (with photos) from any reputable "citizen science" site brought easily into iNaturalist.

Monica 

[Scott Loarie]

I think its important to remember that the main thing we're trying to
build at iNaturalist is a Community of Naturalists as opposed to an
archive of observation data already posted to OdonataCentral or
Bugguide or otherwise available on the web.

This is GBIF's role which is a fantastic resource that iNaturalist
data, eBird data, data from hundreds of museums, and hopefully one day
OdonataCentral and Bugguide data get sent to.

iNaturalist is a social network of naturalists. It would gain
tremendous benefit from having people like Monica be active members of
the community teaching other members of the community through comments
and IDs and fielding answers to questions about the observations she
shares. But Monica's data without Monica-the-community-member is not
something that really benefits the site.

just my 2-cents,

Scott

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "iNaturalist" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
--------------------------------------------------
Scott R. Loarie, Ph.D.
Co-director, iNaturalist.org
California Academy of Sciences
55 Music Concourse Dr
San Francisco, CA 94118
--------------------------------------------------