> * Accuracy of information - data is only of any use if it
> can accurately match sightings with specific habitats at
> specific dates. How many 'lists' have you seen that are
> just that and no more? 'Good' databases will record
> observations to 100m accuracy or better.
>
This is an interesting point. A few of us (I include myself) use a GPS
device to record precise locations, better than 100m accuracy - maybe as
good as 50m at times. This can be output as a grid reference (UTM) or
lat/long to degree/minute/second (DMS), but the Atlas of Victorian
Wildlife as an example can't handle UTM or that level of accuracy in
lat/long, and degrades the locations to DM. I then get a letter asking
for a more precise location!! A capacity to handle UTM and DMS is
something that should be planned for (probably is being planned for) in
the longer term, as I don't always have a map of areas I visit, and
therefore I'm more likely to record the location by lat/long. By way of
a postscript I note that the new 1:100,000 topo maps include UTM as well
as AMG grid markers on the map margins - useful for GPS users as there
can be 100m or so difference between UTM and AMG coordinates.
Cheers, Lawrie
Lawrie Conole
Geelong, Victoria, Australia
|
