miked's picture

Hide precise location

When adding an observation its possible to tick the box ‘hide precise location’, this puts the location somewhere within a 1km box rather than showing the exact location. If you do not want to show the exact location, perhaps its your back garden or the site of a rare species, then its ok to use this box.
However it also means that the site is shown as a 1km square on the map or if there are multiple records then they just vanish once the map is zoomed in beyond a certain zoom level. This is not very helpful if you want to see, for example, which part of a nature reserve the species was found in. It can also be impossible to allocate the observation to the correct county if the observation was near the county boundary and can produce some other issues.
I have been through and edited most of my observations that said ‘hide precise location’ to untick this box but have left a small handful still ticked where I really did prefer to keep the precise location unknown. Note that the default used to be that all observations had the box ticked.

I mentioned these issues in one of the other forums but not sure how much people read the different forums.



Fenwickfield's picture

read this

I did read this when you previously posted it.I have never hidden were my identifications have been found as I personally think it defeats the object of getting an idea of the geographical spread of the species that has been added.I do understand why some people may hide the location if it is rare but if this is the case it should also be reported to the relevant authority.I for example have added certain fungi to fungi recording groups or birds to the BTO Bird track site.I would never put certain mammal's on for fear of persecution also same goes with some birds of pray but would report them to the right society.


miked's picture

I understand your comments.

I understand your comments. However some people are putting almost all their observations as hidden even of very common non-sensitive species in public areas. I am not sure if they realise the implications of ticking the box.

martinjohnbishop's picture

You told me to hide this

This is reasonable after 43 years if there is a risk to the environment where the orchid might grow.

miked's picture

Yes some locations probably

Yes some locations probably still should be hidden. The ghost orchid is a particular case where even after 43 years it is still good to hide its precise location as specimens have come up after very long gaps in the past. It is such a charismatic species and this site is relatively close to population centres so there are a significant number of people who might want to go and search every year so trampling the area and ironically making it less suitable for the plants. There are sites in Europe where large numbers of people travel long distances just to see this species in flower.

dejayM's picture

Old hat maybe

Whilst this is a very old thread, I am of the growing opinion that the iSpot method of hiding the precise location is not good enough. The rectangle, whilst a few hundred metres across, is simply not good enough IF the plant or creature only grows in a certain habitat type. One would envisage that a 'hunter' who knows her stuff would so easily narrow it down.
In any case the exact spot is the very centre of the rectangle (isn't it?) - computers being what they are?
Now read here http://www.ispotnature.org/node/408094