SAR observations "escaping" project boundaries

[biodiversi...@gmail.com]

When species of conservation concern or species at risk (SAR) are posted on iNaturalist, their coordinates are obscured / displaced on the map.

I understand there is a good rationale for this, however there is an associated problem that arises of this concealment...

The obscuration of SAR appears to result in reports disappearing from projects (or not showing up as "Suitable Observations" on traditional projects), which is proving problematic for the projects my lab is setting up on behalf of BC Parks.

Example: a shark was recently posted within the project boundary of Juan de Fuca Provincial Park: 

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/19787316

Once it became identified (research grade) as Blue Shark, however, we lost it from this BC Parks project. Is it possible for Projects on iNaturalist to "read" the true coordinates of observations when capturing them within their boundaries, instead of the obscured coordinates?

[Chris Cheatle]

Only if you set up your project as a traditional project, which requires adding of records. Then project admins can see true coordinates (although users can still block that if they wish).

Collection projects do not show true coordinates, otherwise anyone could set up a project to overcome the obscuring. In terms of even seeing it in the project, that 'decision' is based on how much of the random buffer the location has been assigned is covered by the geography in your project. Otherwise again folks could configure projects with small defined geographies to again overcome the obscuring (ie set a project up with this 500 meters of location, harvest the obscured locations and then move on). 

[tony rebelo]

This is especially a problem in very small nature reserves with lots of threatened species.  The whole point of the project is to showcase the very species that do not feature!

The same applies to Places, although there one can manually add the species by putting them into a checklist, but it still reports that the species has not been seen yet no matter how many records there are in the reserve.

[bouteloua]

This is an intentional safety/privacy feature to prevent finding at-risk species within community curated places. A frequent enough question that there is a FAQ entry for it: https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/help#placeindex

As Chris says, using a traditional project type, and receiving permission from the user to view obscured/private coordinates, is the only way around it currently. More info at https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/managing-projects

(Whether an IUCN NT / highly mobile shark species mainly threatened by commercial fishing as bycatch should even be auto-obscured at all is a whole 'nother question...)

cassi

[Reuven Martin]

Yes, this is intentional and necessary. One of various reasons why things should only be auto-obscured if there is a good reason. 

I think there needs to be some serious discussion of a) who gets to decide what is obscured, and b) what criteria they should be using, with an awareness that auto-obscuring has downsides and should be avoided when possible. 

[Charlie Hohn]

Yeah I’ve been trying to start that dialog for a while. Some of the auto obscuring is kind of absurd as with common tree species that cover half of eastern North America (and have no poaching risk) but are obscured in Quebec because it’s edge of range. It’s getting in the way of me doing applied ecology work I use inat for because at the scale I’m working I can’t use the obscured observations. We don’t need things like that obscured. A lot of it has to do with inat’s reluctance to treat different taxa types differently. For instance, herps should be obscured much more readily than plants because collection and harassment risk is much higher. An edge of range herp probably SHOUlD be obscured but obscuring common tree species is silly and counterproductive. 

But I can’t get anywhere with this and I’ve tried multiple venues. 

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Sent from Gmail Mobile

[biodiversi...@gmail.com]

Regarding this issue, I think the iNat community has created a problem largely in search of an example (honestly, the risk would be quite low of individuals actively harvesting coordinates for rare species, unless we're talking species like white rhinos)

Given that the disadvantages this mechanism presents largely outweighs the risk, I think it would make sense to come up with some solutions, no?

Why can't projects "read" true coordinates while displaying obscured coordinates? This shouldn't be technically difficult to code, and the result should ensure projects include observations of rare species within their boundaries, while still obscuring those observations from the general public. Granted there may still be a risk of iNat "poachers" creating tiny projects to ascertain the locations of rare species, but this seems like a ridiculously small risk, and it could easily be monitored by tracking users who create projects with areas smaller than 500m2 (for example).

Another solution is simply to provide trusted users with access to the coordinates. Surely this solution wouldn't be terribly difficult to implement?

[bouteloua]

Many public landowners and conservation orgs in my region have long been wary of the use of iNaturalist. They don't want certain rare/threatened species being associated with the name of certain preserves, even quite large ones. Poaching/foraging is one thing (yes, it does happen), though harassing animals and trampling sensitive vegetation to take photos is much more prevalent in my area. The staff have been working on geoprivacy for a long time, so they're definitely aware of the costs and benefits, and I'm sure they get a lot of emails from the types of organizations that I'm referencing. 

If you want to discuss this shark species specifically, I started a flag here: https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/328486

cassi

[Andrew Simon]

Thanks for your remarks Cassi. I wonder, though, whether some of the solutions I propose might be implemented without ill effect? It seems like the risks might be greater in some regions more than others. In some cases the auto-obscuration may help conservation, but it seems like there is a broad range of instances where auto-obscuration actually hinders it.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/lpBGUMjzodA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.

[cassi saari]

Looks like user-to-user coordinate sharing is in the works. https://github.com/inaturalist/inaturalist/issues/2029

(As far as what's simple or easy to implement, and how prioritization and funding for new features works, you'd have to reach out directly to the staff.)

If you don't think a certain species should be obscured, or at least not obscured in a certain place, I'd say flag the taxon for curation to get some sort of consensus in any potentially controversial cases, then change its status. Guide for curators copied below:

https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide#geoprivacy

iNaturalist obscures the locations of all taxa with an IUCN equivalent status of Near Threatened or 'worse'. However, if in rare situations these species are thought to be in VERY LITTLE DANGER from exploitation due to the public's knowledge of the location of these species, curators are advised to change the geoprivacy value associated with the conservation status from 'obscured' to 'open' on the taxon edit page.

Examples might be Coast Redwood which is listed as Vulnerable by IUCN because it is endangered by climate change but in very little danger of being collected or otherwise exploited by the public knowing the exact location of redwood observations. Likewise, polar bears are endangered from climate change but perhaps not from poaching.

Obviously, this is a gray area so if you feel compelled to un-obscure a threatened species be prepared to support why you are doing this. Why is the species not likely to be exploited by the public?, why is it of value to have the exact location accessible to the public?, etc.

cassi

[Andrew Simon]

Hi Cassi,

Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback. I will share with my lab.—and will be sure to address this on a case-by-case basis in the future.

Cheers,

Andrew

[Charlie Hohn]

yeah this is just about the 'oldest' problem on iNat, it's been discussed for years, and some improvements have been made with others n the way. I personally don't see much use in the sharing private observations with others, unless it's reflected in the range maps, since the range maps are a lot of how I interface with iNat. That being said, I think other people will value it.  

It wouldbe nice to get a little bit more guidelines on howobscuring works, because it's so consistent. On the other hand i am wary of that because the guidelines may be too restrictive. It seems like the obscurers have won out overall, which is probably for the best in most cases, but in some cases it gets absurd. Common sense is needed. There's no collection pressure on an oak species that is the dominant species 50 miles to the south, just because the range edge coincides with a border.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

============================
Charlie Hohn
Montpelier, Vermont