[Taxacom] Re; Inappropriate accuracy of locality data

[Bob Mesibov]

Hi, guys.

I guess when you refer to 'standard' you mean 'for use in museum databases, GBIF-style aggregations, etc'.

ZooKeys is exceptional in positively encouraging authors to publish locality data in supplementary digital files. This allows authors to publish many data items and tweaks (e.g. point-radius *and* polygon uncertainties) which just don't work in the text of the paper. Most journals are happy with a lat/long. In fact, most journals seem to be happy with locations in words (Happy Trails Waterfall, Chocaholic County).

So how do we get locality data from publications like these into more widely usable form? I'm thinking here of *current*, not legacy publications.

It would be great if the authors did it, but...
-- 
Dr Robert Mesibov
Honorary Research Associate
Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
Ph: (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
Webpage: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/?articleID=570