Archivos de diario de septiembre 2018

04 de septiembre de 2018

04. The discrepancy between Observations on obs search:

i'll continue being a broken record on the other major discrepancy/inconsistency that causes differences between different lists and that is the illogical, arbitrary rule that cultivated/domestic plants/animals shall be declared as unable to be research grade. these records contain important ecological information and are often the entrée to iNaturalist for many urbanites who want to know what 'that plant' is. there is no requirement from GBIF that they only accept 'wild' organisms, only that they are identified as wild or not. but this becomes another source of discrepancy and confusion in bioblitzes and people looking at places versus place-bounded projects or 'species guide' versus 'observations' without realising one needs to drill down deeper in order to figure out the reason for differences (which no one will know to do). My colleagues at NatureWatch NZ agree. And as Charlie or Wolfgang said, these numbers need to be consistent and all visible in all relevant pages; that would solve the problem, so that users know what the different numbers mean - which are all legitimate ways of presenting the data. cheers c

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 6:43:25 AM UTC+12, Scott Loarie wrote:
Hi Mike,

The discrepancy between Observations on
obs search:
http://www.inaturalist.org/observations?d1=2017-04-01&d2=2017-04-30&place_id=any&view=observers
vs
the people leaderboard:
http://www.inaturalist.org/people/leaderboard/2017/4

is that obs search shows 'verifiable' (ie needs_id+research) by default where as the people leaderboard shows all obs (ie casual+needs_id+research)

You can see that if you uncheck 'verifiable' on obs search, they match:
http://www.inaturalist.org/observations?d1=2017-04-01&d2=2017-04-30&place_id=any&verifiable=any&view=observers

The discrepancy between Species on obs search and the people leaderboard is due to the 'verifiable' discrepancy described above
but also the way 'species' are counted.

Here: http://www.inaturalist.org/observations?d1=2017-04-01&d2=2017-04-30&place_id=any&verifiable=any&view=observers
they are counted as 'leaves with ssp rolled up into species'
which means all the tips of the tree where ssp are counted as their parent species

Whereas, here: http://www.inaturalist.org/people/leaderboard/2017/4
they are counted as 'all taxa of rank species or finer'

For example, obs of the following
Taricha
Taricha torosa
Taricha torosa
Taricha torosa torosa
Ensatina

Would be counted as 2 'species' on both obs search and the people leaderboard, but for very different reasons
Obs search: Taricha torosa (3 obs) + Ensatina (1 obs)
People leaderboard: Taricha torosa (2 obs) + Taricha torosa torosa (1 obs)

I'd be in favor of making the people leaderboard page reflect obs search so this is consistent, but curious what others think

-Scott

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Mike Burrell @ontario.ca">mike.b...@ontario.ca wrote:
Hi there,

If one goes to the observations page and clicks the observers button and then filters it for the current month you see a list of the top contributors that you can sort by either Observations or Species (http://www.inaturalist.org/observations?d1=2017-05-01&d2=2017-05-23&place_id=any&view=observers). Currently the top five contributors for observations are:
1 ck2az 3,310
2 erikamitchell 2,245
3 srall 1,806
4 momoto-erick 1,501
5 anudibranchmom 812

One can also access this same information by clicking the people tab and then scrolling down to the leadboards (http://www.inaturalist.org/people). There the top five contributors are:

  1. ck2az 3310 (same)
  2. erikamitchell 2262 (7 more)
  3. srall 2042 (236 more)
  4. momoto-erick 1501 (same)
  5. belyykit 935 (not in top 5 on observations page)

For species they are:
Observations page:
1 srall 426
2 erikamitchell 399
3 sambiology 378
4 catchang 296
5 mako252 279

People page:
1 srall 524 (98 higher)
2 erikamitchell 400 (1 higher)
3 sambiology 369 (9 lower)
4 catchang 292 (4 lower)
5 bouteloua 288 not in top 5 on observations page

Why is there a discrepancy between these two pages that should theoretically be the same. There doesn't seem to be consistent with one page having higher numbers than the other (as I would expect if it were just one page being updated more recently than the other). Are the two pages actually calculating two slightly different figures? Does one of them only count research grade or verifiable observations?

Mike

https://www.inaturalist.org/comments?mine=true
https://github.com/glmory/iNaturalist-Uploads
https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/glmory/21539-updated-python-upload-script
https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/ahospers/26917-7a-analysing-inat-data-pynaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/45541-fun-trick-with-search-urls

Ingresado el 04 de septiembre de 2018 por ahospers ahospers | 1 comentario | Deja un comentario

05. http://inaturalist.github.io/walldash/build/

https://translatewiki.net/

Hmm. Re: inaturalist.ca (and the other national portals) whats going on there is that sites can decide to show stats on the people page either based on the boundary (e.g. obs made within the Canada boundary) or based on portal users (e.g. obs by all people with their account affiliation set to iNaturalist.ca). Looks like all 4 national portals are set to account affiliation.
https://translatewiki.net/

That would also make obs search (which is counting based on the Canada boundary) differ from the people page (which is currently counting based on account affiliation). Its a simple flip of the switch to change how the iNaturalist.ca people page is counting (e.g. based on the boundary rather than affiliation) but the iNat.ca admins should probably make this decision (cc'ing James Page).

Charlie, Wolfgang, Colin et al.,

RE: the consistency of counts on the people page and obs search (portal issues described above aside). I think everybody is in agreement that the counts on the people page should probably match the counts on obs search but seems like there's lots of disagreement on what should be counted. Specifically:

Counting photoless observations (currently photoless obs are 'casual'):
Charlie indicated he wants to count obs without photos. My personal concern with that is that massive CSV uploads of photoless observations can totally crush the stats and leaderboards.For example, check the 'past 100 days' graph here:
http://inaturalist.github.io/walldash/build/
the peak in mid-April was a real bump in engagement due to the City Nature Challenge. Contrast that with the peak mid-May which was due to one person uploading a giant CSV uploading tens of thousands of photo-less observations in the span of 1/2 hour. Similarly look at the 'top user' from 2016:
http://www.inaturalist.org/people/leaderboard/2016 because this page is counting photoless observations, the winner is 'nzgardenbirdsurvey' which is a account not associated with a real person associated 10s of thousands of photoless archived observations. It doesn't seem fair that the 'prize' should go to this account over JC Carpenter (reallifeecology) who personally attended something like 100 Biobltizes during 2016 and uploaded over 15k observations with photos.

Counting observations of planted/captive things (currently captive obs are 'casual'):
Colin's indicated that he wants to count obs of captive things (as the people page is). Definitely a fair opinion. But personally I differ on this one. For example, this year the winner of the City Nature Challenge (which was set to count all obs including casual, captive observations) was someone who walked around the Inner Sunset of San Francisco and made observations of every potted plant on everybody's stoop: http://www.inaturalist.org/projects/city-nature-challenge-2017 I can't speak for others, but this was personally a major disincentive for me to get excited about the competition (as a naturalist I just can't seem to get excited about what people have in their pots on their stoops - I know my personal views here don't reflect everybody, but I have to be honest that it just takes the fun out of the 'game' for me).

Counting all taxa or just species or 'leaves with subspecies rolled up to species'
No ones expressed opinions about this so far in this thread. But this is another discrepancy that would have to be resolved. Here I'm also a personal fan of how obs search is counting (leaves with subspecies rolled up to species) but I'm sure there's subspecies aficionados out there or species purists who want it some other way.

So while it would be nice to get everything consistent, I'm not sure how we can the political buy in to make everybody happy here. Which is the main reason things are sort of grid-locked into the status quo which is a mish-mash of different ways of counting across the site

-Scott
http://inaturalist.github.io/walldash/build/
https://translatewiki.net/
Orcon, WTW, 90%+, paar duizend aan spullen, paar duizend aan installatie (afhankelijk van wat je zelf kan), ruime eengezinswoning woning, jaren 1960 - volledige renovatie naar niveau 2025

https://www.orcon.nl/producten/hrc-220-warmteterugwinunit-voor-kleine-ruimtes/

https://www.inaturalist.org/blog/15450-announcing-changes-to-projects-on-inaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/ahospers/45530-66-relaties-tussen-organismes-aangeven-door-add-test-interactions

test=interactions

66. Interactions, Relaties, Verbondheid

more details here: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/add-interactions-to-species-pages/433/16 here are many ways. Have a look at
https://www.inaturalist.org/search?q=interactions&source%5B%5D=projects

Now a lot depends on your philosophy.

For instance you can just add an interaction (one of the many fields): and name the other side of the interaction.
But that assumes that you know the other organism, and that if you have it wrong you will fix it, and that if the name changes taxonomically, then you will fix it.

see https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/specific-animal-plant-interactions

My philosophy is that you put both as observations and then link them: that way the community takes care of the identifications, and the link will remain no matter what.
If you follow my philosophy look at:
https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/interactions-s-afr

How can we get this higher up the “desired” list of features?
Both the New Zealanders and southern Africans have projects dealing with this.
Ours is visible at https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/interactions-s-afr 4

Basically, we record only the active interaction (i.e. “a eats b”, not “b is eaten by a” - the latter just being the reciprocal of the first), although user pressure has resulted in us adding a passive field for the reciprocal observation, given that observations fields link only one way, so that these observations do not display their hosts) as:

Visiting flowers: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Visiting%20a%20flower%20of:%20(Interaction) 6
Eating: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Eating:%20(Interaction) 5
Parasitizing: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Parasitizing:%20(Interaction) 1
Attached to: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:attached%20to:%20(Interaction)
Carrying: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Carrying:%20(Interaction) 1
Associated with: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Associated%20with:%20(Interaction)
& the passive
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Passive%20Partner%20to:%20(Interaction)

Note that in each case the field value is the url of the interacting observation. Unfortunately we cannot use this is a query to summarize the interactions.
We can ask
“What flowers does the Cape Sugarbird Visit?” - https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=113055&subview=grid&taxon_id=13442&field:Visiting%20a%20flower%20of:%20(Interaction)= 3
but we will only see the bird, and not the flowers, even though all the urls to the flowers are in the field - see: https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/7459 2.

In over 5 years of using this “set” of interactions, we have never had a request to add additional interactions (e.g. Eating = preys on = killing to eat - i.e. “killing for fun” has not cropped up), although it would be nice to have a hierarchical dictionary of interactions (e.g. visiting a flower > pollinating a flower (> for nectar, pollen, oil, gum)/robbing a flower/, etc

I’m happy to leave the test=interactions thing available, I’m just not going to make it visible by default or integrate it into the UI. I don’t think we need to ice this topic, as I think the title sums up what we want pretty well. Personally, I think the Feature Requests category is a way to gauge what kinds of things people are interested in, and not necessarily specific implementation plans, so it’s valuable to me to know how many people chose to upvote this. In fact, I will spend one of my votes on it right now

plant Lantana camara apparently “visits flowers of” 46 species of insects, rather than the other way around https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/50333-Lantana-camara?test=interactions 13). Is it a functionality you can leave available, or are there reasons not to do so?

We investigated this when we redesigned the taxon page in 2016 (yikes, that was a while ago). I just made it so you can see what we did by appending test=interactions to any taxon page URL, and I’ll use examples to explain why we didn’t develop this any further.

The big problem looming over this whole feature is that observation fields are a bad way to model interactions. Since they represent a totally uncontrolled vocabulary, they’re rife with synonymous fields, so it’s hard interpret situations where, for example, there are both eats and preys on interactions, e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/117520-Enhydra-lutris-nereis?test=interactions 28. What’s the difference? Why are both supported?

Another problem is that using observation fields to model interactions means that one of the two taxa in the interaction is not subject to crowdsourced identification, so anyone can say that oaks eat humans and there’s nothing the community can do to correct that. As an example, here’s a butterfly that supposedly eats itself: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/51097-Papilio-zelicaon?test=interactions 16. It doesn’t, this is just due to an erroneously added observation field. Site curators could just delete this field, but that’s generally not how we like to perform quality control at iNat.

On top of that, we really wanted to incorporate data from GLoBI 12, since we like them and we think it’s cool that they incorporate iNat interaction data, but mapping taxonomies and field semantics proved a hassle, and again it presents the problem of data that the iNat community can’t correct if they find errors.

What we’d like to do is to make a new feature for interactions where an interaction is a relationship between two observations with clear and controlled semantics (to the extent that that’s possible). So instead adding an obs field that says an obs of an oak represents that oak eating a human, you would create an interaction and have to choose two observations, one of an oak and another of a human, and choose “eating” from a menu of interaction types where “eating” means “taxon A is putting all or part of taxon B inside its body for the purpose of personal metabolism” or something. Other users could then vote on whether that was the correct interaction type, and the two observations could be independently identified. We could try and pre-populate this new kind of data with observation fields, or at least make a tool that helps people review their own interaction obs fields to make new-style interactions out of them. That’s a lot more work, though, and it hasn’t really been a priority, so we haven’t gotten around to it.

Anyway, that’s a long way of saying that I agree this would be cool, but doing it right will take considerable effo

Ingresado el 04 de septiembre de 2018 por ahospers ahospers | 0 comentarios | Deja un comentario

05 de septiembre de 2018

06. Google quota increased - Observation Upload location search is working again

Google quota increased - Observation Upload location search is working again
https://www.inaturalist.org/comments
http://inaturalist.org/observations/import)
https://crowdin.com/project/inaturalistios/nl# mijn wijziginen zijn na drie maanden ook goedgekeurd..
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Observado%20URL&view=observers
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Observado%20URL=https:%2F%2Fobservation.org%2Fwaarneming%2Fview%2F159608465

Can I add common names?

You can add common names by going to the Taxonomy tab on a taxon page and clicking "Add a Name", but please abide by the guidelines listed there as well as those listed in the Curator's Guide. https://inaturalist.ca/pages/curator%252bguide%252b%25252f%252bguide%252bconservateur

The import tool for the biodiversity4all migration is populating that
field, but its also been used by a few others:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Observado%20URL&view=observers

Rules & Formatting
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/import
You must have a header row
Taxon name must match an existing taxon in our database
Only files with 10000 rows at a time, please
Use well-formed CSV. This means text with commas must be enclosed with double-quotes. Most spreadsheet applications should export CSV in this format.
Don't use double quotes anywhere else
Use unique file names for separate uploads
The geoprivacy column must be in English and must be blank or have a value of "obscured" or "private"

We can only understand CSV in the following format:

https://crowdin.com/project/inaturalistios/nl# mijn wijziginen zijn na drie maanden ook goedgekeurd..

=
I don't know if you have figured this out yet, but simply adding the Hebrew translation will have no impact (other than it being there as a reference). You must do the 2nd step I noted about adding the use in Israel place setting.
https://github.com/inaturalist/inaturalist
If you go to your account settings link, near the bottom of the centre column is a setting marked prioritize names used in, or something very similar to that, which you need to set to Israel.
== https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/inaturalist/common%7Csort:date/inaturalist/s3lvhqARVDU/cONZRRAzFAAJ
you can go to the specific taxa page, go to the taxonomy tab and at the bottom is an option to add names. This works best for individual cases or small numbers of entries. Because the site is not translated into Hebrew (I believe) or it to be really effective, after you do the entry you need to click edit next to it and then under the Places (Add Place) enter Israel
if you have access to a source of names that you can convert into a csv file the team should be able to upload it for you. The format they need I believe is scientific name, language name, translation. I dont know any Hebrew, so for example it would be (from one already entered) : Anas platyrhynchos, Hebrew, ברכיה
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/inaturalist/common%7Csort:date/inaturalist/P8iNMY0WYNM/-SiuBvqiCgAJ 'm now seeing what your text suggests. Is there a different or approved way other than the above to see names in a language into which the site has not been translated ?

On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 7:22:19 PM UTC-4, Ken-ichi Ueda wrote:
Ok, Chris sent me some screenshots and I think I understand the
problem: some people maybe using the place preference to get around
the lack of a translated language, e.g. Sweden and Swedish. Since I
don't want to rob Swedes of their names, I've changed the priority on
gorilla. Now it's more like this

1) Name in locale and place
2) Name in place
3) Name in locale and ancestor place (e.g. Europe)
4) Name in locale

That means if your prefs are English / Sweden, should see "Korp" at
the top of http://gorilla.inaturalist.org/taxa/8010-Corvus-corax, and
if your prefs are Spanish / Mexico, you should see "Meliloto Amarillo"
and the top of http://gorilla.inaturalist.org/taxa/57066-Melilotus-officinalis.

I think there's still a potential problem if your names place
preference is set to Stockholm (i.e. a place in Sweden), but that
seems like a lesser problem than English names showing up for Mexican
users.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 2:35 PM Ken-ichi @gmail.com">kenich...@gmail.com wrote:

Chris,

When you say, "I see Korp" I need to know where you see "Korp", so I
need a URL or a better yet screenshot showing the URL (or the app if
you're using one of the apps).
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:15 AM Chris Cheatle @gmail.com">cmch...@gmail.com wrote:

Just to follow up on the above :

if both a Swedish and a Danish translation are entered - I see Swedish. For example Corvus corax is Ravn in Danish and Korp in Swedish. Both are entered and I see Korp.
If a Danish is entered, but no Swedish - I see the Danish. For example Limosa limosa has the Danish translation of Stor Kobbersneppe entered, but no Swedish translation - I see Stor Kobbersneppe

On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 1:52:34 PM UTC-4, Chris Cheatle wrote:

Ken-Ichi,

As you may know, I am one of the more frequent curator contributors of translations. Can you clarify the exact order of precedence in this change ?

You note " so language always gets priority over place,".

I set my language to Danish, but place to Sweden. When I do this I see Swedish names. Based on the above, should this be the case? I'd interpret that description to mean I should be seeing Danish.

On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 8:15:26 PM UTC-4, Ken-ichi Ueda wrote:

We're testing a small change to how we show common names on http://gorilla.inaturalist.org (username: preview, pw: 313phant), and we'd appreciate it if folks can take a look and see if anything looks off with the common names you're seeing.

Long story is that a Mexican user was seeing English names for some taxa because those names had been associated with North America but not with Mexico, and in the absence of a Mexico-specific name, the North American name was superseding the language-specific Spanish name, which seemed wrong. What's on gorilla makes it so language always gets priority over place, so even if you've chosen Mexico as your place, if your language is set to Spanish you should always see a Spanish name, even if there's a name in a different language added for Mexico or some place containing Mexico. I'm hoping this won't be disruptive, but with all the feelings common names seem to provoke, I suspect that hope will be crushed.

1) Name in locale and place
2) Name in place
3) Name in locale and ancestor place (e.g. Europe)
4) Name in locale




That means if your prefs are English / Sweden, should see "Korp" at
the top of http://gorilla.inaturalist.org/taxa/8010-Corvus-corax, and
if your prefs are Spanish / Mexico, you should see "Meliloto Amarillo"
and the top of http://gorilla.inaturalist.org/taxa/57066-Melilotus-officinalis

quote]Thanks for the reports, folks. We recently moved house to a new server
provider ([b]Rackspace to Microsoft Azure, if you're curious)[/b]. We now
have a lot more room to grow, and Microsoft has been incredibly
generous in donating most of the resources we need on their platform,
so the move is actually a really good thing for all of us. The
downside is that like with any move, some things get jumbled or
overlooked. Right now we've got a few issues resolving some[b] SSL /
HTTPS requests,[/b] but we're working on it. Apologies for the
interruptions. [/quote]

On the cloud: iNat's assets are currently stored on Amazon Web Service, and the database is stored at Rackspace, we have backups at Datapipe

I found iNat's REST API reference here-> https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/api+reference

The iNat staff have said they do plan to incorporate a taxonomic view setting on the observations page. In the meantime you could try a URL like this (change the user_id from mine to yours and the taxon_id to whichever group you're interested in):

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/taxa?user_id=bouteloua&taxon_id=47157

Or just leave it blank:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/taxa?user_id=bouteloua

It can take a few moments to load.

Oh, and places, with place_id:

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/taxa?user_id=bouteloua&place_id=24&taxon_id=47158 (insects I have observed in Iowa)

Easiest place to find both is to go to "Explore" (observations page) and filter by taxon and/or place. Check the URL for the IDs.
I don't know a way to view your observation images taxonomically. Can you explain more or visually illustrate what that would look like? e.g. if you had 50 observations of monarchs and 30 observations of viceroys, all 80 observations would display within the taxonomic hierarchy for Lepidoptera?Let’s say I want to see the species of Papilionoidea (butterflies) in New York that I’ve uploaded. I am not interested in total observations (so I don’t want 80 monarch images, just one), but I am interested in seeing the different species I’ve seen so I click on the species tab on that observation page and get a visual listing. So far, so good. The problem is that they appear as a mishmosh, based on dates uploaded, or taken, I think. No meaningful organization at all.

I’d like to then organize the results taxonomically (as they are in the life list), so I’d see first, say, the swallowtails, then the Lycaenids, Nymphalids, etc. That is my first choice. I think many users would find this useful.

If that is not possible I would at least like to have a listing of all the butterflies alphabetically, so I could see what species in each genera (even if they are not arranged phylogenetically) I have photographed (and thereby see which ones I’m missing.) To a non-programmer, I would think the latter (sorting alphabetically) in the ‘filters’ would not be so difficult to accomplish.

Another method is to create a life list for that given area (e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/lists/835799-Ontario-List). Use the options "Reload from observations" and "Re-apply list rules" under "Tools" to make sure it's up to date (lists are kind of broken). You now have a list with your photos, which can be filtered taxonomically, and will show pictures ordered taxonomically (although it won't match any particular convention for order, so for butterflies the order is Swallowtails, Skippers, Brush-foots, Lycaenids, Pierids).

There is no direct link from here to your observations for that taxon.

https://www.inaturalist.org/comments?mine=true
https://github.com/glmory/iNaturalist-Uploads
https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/glmory/21539-updated-python-upload-script
https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/ahospers/26917-7a-analysing-inat-data-pynaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/45541-fun-trick-with-search-urls

Ingresado el 05 de septiembre de 2018 por ahospers ahospers | 0 comentarios | Deja un comentario

12 de septiembre de 2018

08. DatabaseRecht adding ".json" to the URL to see the placeholde org/observations/15842355.json

https://www.inaturalist.org/identifications?user_id=ahospers&category=maverick

@ahospers - adding ".json" to the URL to see the placeholder, even after it has been overwritten by a new ID, appears to work. See: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/15842355.json

Your placeholder (Klein kaasjekruid) is there.

You might need to download a json viewer as a browser extension for better formatting. I appear to already have one installed (in Firefox) so it is easy to view the page data

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/jsonview/

GBIF has a different taxonomic backbone than iNaturalist. This kind of
'fuzzy matching' or rolling names up to the finest common ancestor is
common (e.g. if GBIF can't find Genus1 species2 they'll role it up to
Genus1). If you want the 'raw' iNat data from GBIF you can download
the iNat “source archive” (our URL) or the GBIF annotated archive here
https://www.gbif.org/dataset/50c9509d-22c7-4a22-a47d-8c48425ef4a7On

https://www.gbif.org/dataset/50c9509d-22c7-4a22-a47d-8c48425ef4a7

It's been discussed - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/inaturalist/placeholder%7Csort:date/inaturalist/RIphMADpjug/QaB3OORdAQAJ I would just suggest not using placeholders if possible

https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/18645-update-to-our-privacy-policy#activity_comment_2092072

https://www.dw.com/en/european-parliament-approves-controversial-new-copyright-law-in-blow-to-tech-firms/a-45449863

Andre, looks like EU copyright updates have not been finalized, so I can't comment on their implications, though if that article is accurate, it seems even more poorly-conceived than the GDPR. If / when it becomes law in the EU our lawyers will advise us on what it means for iNaturalist.

Copyright and other intellectual property rights issues are not the same as privacy, so the Privacy Policy doesn't really have much to say about who can copy the creative works you willingly publish. To answer your questions, though,

How is it with observations?

It varies by jurisdiction. Generally, the parts of an observation that represent facts about the world (coordinates, date, etc) are not subject to copyright, though the EU does have IP protections for collections of facts that the US does not (the classic court case in the US involved copying a phone book, which is apparently legal in the US but perhaps not in the US). If you wrote a description with your observation, though, that could be subject to copyright as it could be considered a creative work. That's why we provide CC licensing options for both observations and photos.

GBIF always get the observations in iNaturalist or only the research grade observations ? And it does not matter on which License model you use ?

The archive we create for GBIF to consume includes all Research Grade observations with CC0, CC BY, or CC BY-NC licenses and their associated CC0, CC BY, or CC BY-NC photos (actually we just include the URLs to the photos). So yes, only Research Grade, and yes, your license choice matters.

If i change an observation, improve an ID the GBIF does not get an update i guess?

Yes, GBIF gets this updated data the next time they ingest the archive.

And with R an Rsciopen and the iNaturalist API everybody can read the data?
[blockquote]
API consumers can only read the data everyone else can see on the website. You can see what that looks like by using the API yourself, e.g. http://api.inaturalist.org/v1/observations[/blockquote]

If you have further questions that don't involve privacy, please send them to help@inaturalist.org

TRANSLATE
https://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Special%3ATranslationStats&preview=1&width=600&height=400&start=&days=200&scale=days&count=edits&mw-language-selector=aa&language=nl&mw-group-selector=ajapaik&group=out-inaturalist

https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/

https://www.inaturalist.org/identifications?user_id=ahospers&category=maverick

https://www.inaturalist.org/comments?mine=true
https://github.com/glmory/iNaturalist-Uploads
https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/glmory/21539-updated-python-upload-script
https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/ahospers/26917-7a-analysing-inat-data-pynaturalist
https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/45541-fun-trick-with-search-urls

Ingresado el 12 de septiembre de 2018 por ahospers ahospers | 1 comentario | Deja un comentario

24 de septiembre de 2018

09. View observation fields with your Observado ID

To view observation fields with your Observado ID, you might want to bookmark a link like this:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Observado%20URL=https:%2F%2Fobservation.org%2Fwaarneming%2Fview%2F119969639
and then edit that number at the very end of the URL to your Observado ID in question.

It's my understanding that a redesign of the observations search page is on the to-do list for the website developers, and I do hope they include observation fields/annotations in the filters. For now you can navigate to an observation to find the appropriate URL (e.g. see attached, where you would click "Observations with this field and value") to find the link above.

iNaturalist doesn't have any "standardized" observation fields for host species. "Host" is the most used one, though "Host plant" is also commonly used. Here are all the observation fields with "host" in the name. The only standardized observation fields (aka "Annotations") are Sex, Life Stage, and Flowering Phenology. Read more about annotations here.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Host=56312

UNDOCUMENTED SHORTCUTS
Texel http://texel.waarneming.nl/
Vlieland http://vlieland.waarneming.nl/
Terschelling http://terschelling.waarneming.nl/
Ameland http://ameland.waarneming.nl/
Schiermonnikoog http://schier.waarneming.nl/
Rottumerooog http://rottum.waarneming.nl/

Eastern Europe https://eastern_europe.observation.org/map_lastobs_v2.php
Iberian Peninsula https://iberia.observation.org
Nord Pas de Calais https://nordpasdecalais.observation.org
Nordrhein-Westfalen https://nrw.observation.org
West palearctic https://westernpal.observation.org
Canarische eilanden https://canarias.observation.org
Dutch Caribbean https://dutch_antilles.observation.org
Amazon Rainforest https://amazon.observation.org
Patagonia https://patagonia.observation.org


Dutch translation, there are instructions here: https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/translate - Tony


https://www.doabooks.org/doab?func=search&uiLanguage=en&template=&query=vegetation
https://www.doabooks.org/doab?func=browse&uiLanguage=en&queryField=dutch&x=0&y=0
https://www.doabooks.org/doab?func=search&page=5&template=&query=dutch&uiLanguage=en

https://www.doabooks.org/doab?func=search&query=birds
https://www.doabooks.org/doab?func=search&query=environment
https://www.doabooks.org/doab?func=search&query=plants
https://www.doabooks.org/doab?func=search&query=ict
https://www.doabooks.org/doab?func=search&query=software
https://www.doabooks.org/doab?func=search&query=ökologisch
https://www.doabooks.org/doab?func=search&query=software
https://www.doabooks.org/doab?func=search&query=ecology
https://www.doabooks.org/doab?func=search&query=software

https://www.doabooks.org/doab?func=search&uiLanguage=en&template=&query=environment

--
www.biodiversitylibrary.org

Biodiversity Heritage Library provides free open access to biodiversity literature online. http://www.si.edu/Termsofuse

Biodiversity Heritage Library

SciArt from the Biodiversity Heritage Library, a free and #openaccess digital library for #biodiversity literature. Legal: http://s.si.edu/legal

www.biodiversitylibrary.org

The Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland by J. T.R. Sharrock — free epub
http://pdf.to/index/page-1/
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/
http://pdf.to/index/page-1/

Observado Field

https://08803153282062712724.googlegroups.com/attach/1630df9cf9744a/2018-09-23%2015_50_48-Ornithogalum%20montanum%20(Mountain%20Star-of-Bethlehem)%20observed%20by%20ahospers%20on%20June%20.png?part=0.1&view=1&vt=ANaJVrGMFDA1BuJBfTLIw0Os2jYKo_vbm9rH82rNg6JXgDs8r4WNf_W7hJS6r0dk4yVugkLmawoWyzhRwupzCtxbxeMhoi169sXal9kau546iJJiwjPJv8w

https://08803153282062712724.googlegroups.com/attach/1630df9cf9744a/2018-09-23%2015_50_48-Ornithogalum%20montanum%20(Mountain%20Star-of-Bethlehem)%20observed%20by%20ahospers%20on%20June%20.png

Ingresado el 24 de septiembre de 2018 por ahospers ahospers | 3 comentarios | Deja un comentario

28 de septiembre de 2018

10 iNaturalist search terms and tricks

I've tried to collate all the search terms and tricks here, please add or correct any omissions or errors. Can anyone recommend a way to create a collaborative list of search terms and tricks? Perhaps a google spreadsheet?

Searching comments:

To search comments for a term: https://www.inaturalist.org/comments?q=XYZ (note: this will also find words or phrases that contain XYZ as a string so it will find ‘boXY Zebra’)

To search comments for a phrase: https://www.inaturalist.org/comments?q=XYZ%20ABC

Note: ID comments and descriptions are not currently searchable under the https://www.inaturalist.org/comments page, however they will appear in the comment list if a obs has at least one comment.

Searching for Identifications:

http://inaturalist.org/identifications/?user_id=1234&taxon_id=1234 to find IDs by a user (higher taxon will include all lower)

to see all maverick obs: https://www.inaturalist.org/identifications?user_id=XYZ&current=false

to find obs of a taxon where it isn’t the current ID: https://www.inaturalist.org/identifications?taxon_id=119245&current=false

URLS manipulation (some of these have their own toggles in the filters):

Only with photos: &photos=true

To find a term in a description or tag: &q=XYZ

To find a phrase in a description or tag: &q=XYZ%20ABC

To see only your obs append this: &user_id=vynbos

To see only unknowns append: &iconic_taxa=unknown

Limit to a taxon: &taxon_id=12345 (note this will also show all obs below that taxon)

To limit to a taxon and nothing below it: &taxon_id=12345&lrank=XYZ (replace XYZ with the taxon’s rank i.e: ‘family’)

For multiple taxa separate with comma: &taxon_id=12345,67890

To remove a taxon: &without_taxon_id=12345

Male : &term_id=9&term_value_id=11

Female : &term_id=9&term_value_id=10

Setting date range filters in URL = http://www.inaturalist.org/observations?d1=2014-05-15&d2=2014-05-25&per_page=200

Also, https://www.inaturalist.org/identifications?user_id=XYZ&current=false doesn't just show mavericks. It shows any differing IDs, even if they are not in disagreement (e.g, I enter an ID of "Birds", someone else IDs to Species...my coarse ID is listed here). Furthermore, it lists observations where I was the maverick, even if I have since withdrawn my dissenting ID (because current=false).

I've found this works better for finding a user's maverick IDs: https://www.inaturalist.org/identifications?user_id=star3&category=maverick&current=true (substitute your user ID)

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/export
https://www.inaturalist.org/comments
k you can, but maybe though some combination of filters it is possible to further restrict the list to things you have not photographed
by default, the list uses your Research Grade, for example Southern Cloudywing comes back on my list. I have observed it, but a person vote against it, so it is stuck at NeedsID and genus : https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/14347167

Another method is to create a life list for that given area (e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/lists/835799-Ontario-List). Use the options "Reload from observations" and "Re-apply list rules" under "Tools" to make sure it's up to date (lists are kind of broken). You now have a list with your photos, which can be filtered taxonomically, and will show pictures ordered taxonomically (although it won't match any particular convention for order, so for butterflies the order is Swallowtails, Skippers, Brush-foots, Lycaenids, Pierids).

To view observation fields with your Observado ID, you might want to bookmark a link like this:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Observado%20URL=https:%2F%2Fobservation.org%2Fwaarneming%2Fview%2F119969639
and then edit that number at the very end of the URL to your Observado ID in question.

It's my understanding that a redesign of the observations search page is on the to-do list for the website developers, and I do hope they include observation fields/annotations in the filters. For now you can navigate to an observation to find the appropriate URL (e.g. see attached, where you would click "Observations with this field and value") to find the link above.

iNaturalist doesn't have any "standardized" observation fields for host species. "Host" is the most used one, though "Host plant" is also commonly used. Here are all the observation fields with "host" in the name. The only standardized observation fields (aka "Annotations") are Sex, Life Stage, and Flowering Phenology. Read more about annotations here.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Host=56312

Ingresado el 28 de septiembre de 2018 por ahospers ahospers | 2 observaciones | 0 comentarios | Deja un comentario

10 de septiembre de 2018

07. Een nieuwe ontwikkeling is het herkennen van foto`s via een web interface.

accommodate a flat set of classes (e.g. species) and not a hierarchy
nested classes (e.g. family, genus, species etc.) more than it has to
do with the fact that mainly species have are 'Research Quality'.

We're currently actively working on making the computer vision model
work on the full taxonomy and not just species (which includes making
use of data beyond just the 'Research Quality' subset). Attached is a

screenshot from iNat research collaborator Grant Van Horn's work
(https://www.inaturalist.org/people/gvanhorn) which shows a demo of
computer vision working across the taxonomy. Its confidence that this
drawing is a bird is 0.99, that its in the woodpecker order is 0.92,
and that its Pilleated Woodpecker is 0.75.

A lot of the work I've personally been doing these last few weeks with
taxonomy related coordination and functionality has been towards this
goal of making sure iNat's taxonomy can be actively curated but is
also well structured enough to work with this new model. So in case
anyone's wondering its not just because I'm totally OCD about taxonomy

Al enige tijd zijn een aantal android apps verkrijgbaar uit de obsidentiy familie welke voor een aantal soortgroepen de mogelijkheid bieden om de soort te herkennen vanaf 1 of meerdere foto`s. Deze apps hebben een volledige herkennings database in de app zelf waardoor herkennen geen dataverkeer kost en dus overal werkt.

Een nieuwe ontwikkeling is het herkennen van foto`s via een web interface.
Deze web interface werkt via de servers van naturalis :
https://identify.biodiversityanalysis.nl/beta/observation/demo
Voordeel hiervan is dat je niet hoeft te zoeken naar de juiste app
Nadeel is dat dit wel dataverkeer kost en maximaal 10 herkenningen per dag per ip-adres mogelijk zijn.

Deze web interface biedt wel weer mogelijkheden om op een aantal plekken in Waarneming.nl / Waarnemingen.be te integreren.
Optie 1:
Help de gebruiker om de soort te herkennen die op zijn foto staat.
Dat kan in Waarneming.nl nu op 2 manieren

  • Je hebt een waarneming met foto('s) al ingevoerd maar je wilt je determinatie even checken: In het waarneming detailscherm klik je op 'Controleer determinatie'



  • De uitkomst in beide gevallen kan zijn:
    'Zeker' (confident) : met een waarschijnlijkheid van >90% is het de soort , of juist een heel andere soort.
    'Onzeker' (uncertain) : met een waarschijnlijkheid tussen 60-90% is het de soort, of juist een heel andere soort.
    In andere gevallen krijg je geen 'advies'

    Optie 2:
    De webservice kan ook gebruikt worden om te valideren.
    Per soort kan dit aan of uitgezet worden.
    Per soort kan het minimale waarschijnlijkheidspercentage worden ingesteld (90-100 %)

    Als gebruiker merk je daar het volgende van:

    • Je waarneming (met foto) krijgt een grijs vinkje
    • Na het uploaden van een foto krijg je gelijk een melding als de waarneming is goedgekeurd
    • Na een eventuele wijziging wordt de validatie gelijk opnieuw uitgevoerd.

    https://www.inaturalist.org/blog/15450-announcing-changes-to-projects-on-inaturalist
    https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/ahospers/45530-66-relaties-tussen-organismes-aangeven-door-add-test-interactions

    test=interactions

    66. Interactions, Relaties, Verbondheid

    more details here: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/add-interactions-to-species-pages/433/16 here are many ways. Have a look at
    https://www.inaturalist.org/search?q=interactions&source%5B%5D=projects

    Now a lot depends on your philosophy.

    For instance you can just add an interaction (one of the many fields): and name the other side of the interaction.
    But that assumes that you know the other organism, and that if you have it wrong you will fix it, and that if the name changes taxonomically, then you will fix it.

    see https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/specific-animal-plant-interactions

    My philosophy is that you put both as observations and then link them: that way the community takes care of the identifications, and the link will remain no matter what.
    If you follow my philosophy look at:
    https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/interactions-s-afr

    How can we get this higher up the “desired” list of features?
    Both the New Zealanders and southern Africans have projects dealing with this.
    Ours is visible at https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/interactions-s-afr 4

    Basically, we record only the active interaction (i.e. “a eats b”, not “b is eaten by a” - the latter just being the reciprocal of the first), although user pressure has resulted in us adding a passive field for the reciprocal observation, given that observations fields link only one way, so that these observations do not display their hosts) as:

    Visiting flowers: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Visiting%20a%20flower%20of:%20(Interaction) 6
    Eating: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Eating:%20(Interaction) 5
    Parasitizing: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Parasitizing:%20(Interaction) 1
    Attached to: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:attached%20to:%20(Interaction)
    Carrying: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Carrying:%20(Interaction) 1
    Associated with: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Associated%20with:%20(Interaction)
    & the passive
    https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?field:Passive%20Partner%20to:%20(Interaction)

    Note that in each case the field value is the url of the interacting observation. Unfortunately we cannot use this is a query to summarize the interactions.
    We can ask
    “What flowers does the Cape Sugarbird Visit?” - https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=113055&subview=grid&taxon_id=13442&field:Visiting%20a%20flower%20of:%20(Interaction)= 3
    but we will only see the bird, and not the flowers, even though all the urls to the flowers are in the field - see: https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/7459 2.

    In over 5 years of using this “set” of interactions, we have never had a request to add additional interactions (e.g. Eating = preys on = killing to eat - i.e. “killing for fun” has not cropped up), although it would be nice to have a hierarchical dictionary of interactions (e.g. visiting a flower > pollinating a flower (> for nectar, pollen, oil, gum)/robbing a flower/, etc

    I’m happy to leave the test=interactions thing available, I’m just not going to make it visible by default or integrate it into the UI. I don’t think we need to ice this topic, as I think the title sums up what we want pretty well. Personally, I think the Feature Requests category is a way to gauge what kinds of things people are interested in, and not necessarily specific implementation plans, so it’s valuable to me to know how many people chose to upvote this. In fact, I will spend one of my votes on it right now

    plant Lantana camara apparently “visits flowers of” 46 species of insects, rather than the other way around https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/50333-Lantana-camara?test=interactions 13). Is it a functionality you can leave available, or are there reasons not to do so?

    We investigated this when we redesigned the taxon page in 2016 (yikes, that was a while ago). I just made it so you can see what we did by appending test=interactions to any taxon page URL, and I’ll use examples to explain why we didn’t develop this any further.

    The big problem looming over this whole feature is that observation fields are a bad way to model interactions. Since they represent a totally uncontrolled vocabulary, they’re rife with synonymous fields, so it’s hard interpret situations where, for example, there are both eats and preys on interactions, e.g. https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/117520-Enhydra-lutris-nereis?test=interactions 28. What’s the difference? Why are both supported?

    Another problem is that using observation fields to model interactions means that one of the two taxa in the interaction is not subject to crowdsourced identification, so anyone can say that oaks eat humans and there’s nothing the community can do to correct that. As an example, here’s a butterfly that supposedly eats itself: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/51097-Papilio-zelicaon?test=interactions 16. It doesn’t, this is just due to an erroneously added observation field. Site curators could just delete this field, but that’s generally not how we like to perform quality control at iNat.

    On top of that, we really wanted to incorporate data from GLoBI 12, since we like them and we think it’s cool that they incorporate iNat interaction data, but mapping taxonomies and field semantics proved a hassle, and again it presents the problem of data that the iNat community can’t correct if they find errors.

    What we’d like to do is to make a new feature for interactions where an interaction is a relationship between two observations with clear and controlled semantics (to the extent that that’s possible). So instead adding an obs field that says an obs of an oak represents that oak eating a human, you would create an interaction and have to choose two observations, one of an oak and another of a human, and choose “eating” from a menu of interaction types where “eating” means “taxon A is putting all or part of taxon B inside its body for the purpose of personal metabolism” or something. Other users could then vote on whether that was the correct interaction type, and the two observations could be independently identified. We could try and pre-populate this new kind of data with observation fields, or at least make a tool that helps people review their own interaction obs fields to make new-style interactions out of them. That’s a lot more work, though, and it hasn’t really been a priority, so we haven’t gotten around to it.

    Anyway, that’s a long way of saying that I agree this would be cool, but doing it right will take considerable effo

    Ingresado el 10 de septiembre de 2018 por ahospers ahospers | 0 comentarios | Deja un comentario