geographical coordinates and accuracy

[Dr. Gerald Stinger Guala]

I fully agree that it is desirable to have distance errors as you suggest.
Unfortunately, we have found this to be completely unreliable with
volunteers and with the number of specimens to be geocoded, we will never
have highly trained personnel doing the work. At least a ranking does not
automatically loose data like county or state maps do.

I think that the real savior will be one of the numerous automated virtual
intelligence geocoding programs now under development that integrate label
data, collector gazeteers, GIS data and habitat modelling to produce a best
guess of the exact locality with integrated error.

Gerald "Stinger" Guala, Ph.D.
Keeper of the Herbarium
Coordinator of the Program in Tropical Plant Systematics
Fairchild Tropical Garden Research Center
11935 Old Cutler Rd.
Coral Gables, FL 33156-4299

www.virtualherbarium.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG]On Behalf Of
Steve Shattuck
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 6:02 PM
To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
Subject: geographical coordinates and accuracy


It's far safer and much more universal to record the accuracy of coordinates
as a distance error (preferably in meters) than as a code (1-5 or whatever).
Anyone using your data can interpret a distance but no one other than local
users will understand the codes.  Arguably a standard set of codes could be
developed (1 = within 10m, 2 = 11-50m, etc) but given the independent nature
of taxonomists it's unlikely this would ever be agreed on never mind
accepted and implemented.

In short, if you record the accuracy as a distance there's a good chance
others will use it now and in the future; if you record the accuracy as a
code no one will use it except yourself and it will be easily forgotten.

Steve Shattuck
CSIRO Entomology
biolink at ento.csiro.au