Something that has been bugging me for a while is that Atlas records I
submit via birdata.com.au never show up on the maps subsequently. Deters
me from doing more of this.
Steve
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Graeme Stevens <>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Grahame,
>
> It is also my understanding that there are plans to revamp the Atlas
> portal and that Birdlife have been appealing for funds to start that work.
> Perhaps Andrew you could let the list know what is happening? Many on the
> list may feel inclined to support the project and even contribute to design
> and functionality if that opportunity exists.
>
> As a long term "Atlasser", I consider it would be a great shame indeed if
> the increasing volume of field work registered on e-bird and Eremaea did
> not contribute to what is now a long term and very rich database created
> over decades by dedicated "citizen scientists" and professional
> ornithologists. (the current Atlas registers 677,000 surveys covering
> 318,000 sites)
>
> It has the great advantage (to me) of being moderated to preserve data
> integrity and I have quite rightly been asked for more detail to justify
> some of my entries which involved rarities or range extensions. The fact
> that I am a life member cuts no ice at all and nor should it! But the Atlas
> portal as it stands has the disadvantage of little personalisation. As an
> Atlasser I consider that I am contributing to an extremely valuable and
> long term endeavour but you don't get too much back for personal records
> and data manipulation. if the richness of personal utility could be
> enhanced it would now be really something! (on the other hand, it is
> undoubtedly more straightforward and economical to follow the "KISS"
> principle).
>
> Double data entry has never really appealed - life's too short. So I shall
> continue with the Atlas as for me the contribution to the national
> biodiversity record holds more value than any personal record - but that's
> just me. My Atlas species list from surveys is I think around 590, no idea
> what my total Australian list is.
>
> Seems to me that convergence of aims and objectives and some integration
> with appropriate data integrity would be just fantastic if achievable! And
> one thing I have learned in my humble career is that it is often cheaper
> and easier to re-engineer than to try to build utopia from scratch.
>
> Good birding all on the list - whatever directions the passion takes you,
> banding, photography or personal listing etc (and with a fervent hope this
> generates light more than heat!)
> Graeme
>
> > Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:09:16 +1000
> > From:
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Yet another listing app!
> >
> > When Eremaea eBird was launched, there was mention of a specific
> > BirdLife Atlas entry form to ensure all the Atlas data was included in a
> > list. Currently I use the Other Area input form, but a lot of the
> > information required has to be entered in the Comments field - not a
> > very satisfactory process. And there is no certainty that the data will
> > reach the Atlas as there was with the old Eremaea.
> > I understand there are plans for a new portal to the Atlas, but eBird is
> > here and now, and brilliantly easy to use. It would take very little
> > effort to add an Atlas entry form to Eremaea eBird.
> > If you would use such a form, please let Eremaea and BirdLife Australia
> > know:
> > http://help.ebird.org/customer/portal/emails/new?t=412380 and
> >
> > If there is enough interest we may get a form!
> >
> > Regards
> > Grahame Rogers
> >
> > On 17/10/2014 8:32 AM, Dave Torr wrote:
> > > My understanding is that Eremaea used to be able to send stuff to the
> BA
> > > atlas. Not sure if that happens with eBird?
> > >
> > > On 17 October 2014 09:29, Martin Butterfield <>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Given the way the message from Konkoit appeared, I like many others
> > >> assumed it was spam and thus likely to lead to getting a few things I
> > >> didn't want as well as those advertised. Since no-one from Konkoit
> has
> > >> seen fit to disabuse this list of that notion, I at least will be
> staying
> > >> well away from it. (I find eBird to be very good for my purposes.)
> > >>
> > >> A point raised in this thread has been that of data being held in
> multiple
> > >> locations. I see that as an important issue given the role of data in
> > >> informing EISs development approvals etc. This isn't to say there
> > >> shouldn't be multiple data capture mechanisms but the results should
> all
> > >> end 'somewhere' agreed to be the official repository.
> > >>
> > >> Martin
> > >>
> > >> Martin Butterfield
> > >> http://franmart.blogspot.com.au/
> > >>
> > >> On 17 October 2014 07:52, Peter Shute <> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Yes, before one rejects a new listing system perhaps one should
> consider
> > >>> whether it's better than previous ones. Has anyone tried this Konkoit
> > >>> database?
> > >>>
> > >>> I agree with your final point about validation. As far as I know,
> this
> > >>> does distinguish eBird from many others, and it would be hard to
> beat it.
> > >>>
> > >>> My memory of Dave Torr's project, if it's the one I'm thnking of, was
> > >>> that it was primarily intended to collate information about birding
> sites -
> > >>> locations, maps, brochures, etc. A good idea, and I don't think it
> has been
> > >>> made fully obsolete by the likes of eBird.
>
>
> <HR>
> <BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
> <BR>
> <BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
> <BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
> </HR>
>
<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR>
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
|
