Rachy Ramone's picture

Location: could be more helpful if less detailed.

When skimming through the Observations listing, I find that a location of something like "12, Acacia Avenue" is singularly unhelpful.

I think it would be better to have the summary listing less detailed - the town, or even just the county.

Obviously the actual location would still need to be detailed, (and would still be reached by clicking on the location to get the map etc) but it's not necessary to have the street name on the summary, whereas having the county would immediately "place" the observation in the readers' minds.

Anyone else agree?



Mydaea's picture

Yes, but a lot of the problem

Yes, but a lot of the problem is the mapping facility that automatically takes names from the Google database, and these persist unless you type an alternative.

Martin Harvey's picture


One of the long-term aims of the recent changes to our mapping and communities is to enable iSpot users to filter observations in a variety of ways, both international and by smaller regions such as counties. This will allow people to see what else is being observed in their home county.

But I'm afraid we're not there yet! There is still some development work needed to complete this functionality. We'll let you know how things progress, but please bear with us in the meantime.

The detailed "21 Acacia Avenue" type site names do get automatically generated from the Google maps, but after clicking on the map to get the coordinates users can retype the site name to whatever they wish.

Entomologist and biological recorder

Rachy Ramone's picture

Many thanks, Martin,

...it's good to hear that you are already on the case.

I shall look forward to that particular "change" with a very positive outlook - as opposed to the usual grumbling when things change!

Rachy Ramone

How to take close-ups with cheap phone and hand-lens:
Field Guides for Budding Botanists: