Open kitenetter opened 3 years ago
1) No: there is no automatic flow down to the occurrences. 2) Yes, we can do that. Identification of which occurrences could just be as simple as "all the occurrences on sites XX and YY"
3/4. The purpose of marking sites as confidential was never to exclude their data from county datasets, just to prevent public identification of sites on private land or key sites for vulnerable species. So I certainly think verifiers should have access.
I would think that (3) was the best option, provided the 'confidential' flag is clearly visible to the verifier and part of the download. As you say, this will require some communication with the verifiers to ensure they respect the status of these records.
I'll bring in @zrandle at this point, as she is drawing up guidance for county butterfly recorders, so may have a view on options 3 and 4, as well as the best way to communicate any change.
Thanks, Ian
See also #251
A county butterfly recorder has asked why he can't see or verify the records from a particular transect. It appears that this transect was mistakenly marked as "confidential" in the site details on Transect Walker. This seems to have resulted in the transect occurrences being flagged as "confidential" and thus being excluded from view both for public users and verifiers.
@IanMiddlebrook has changed the site details so that it is no longer confidential.
Various questions arise. For @Gary-van-Breda
For @IanMiddlebrook and @MeganLowe
Changes/additions to verifer filters are possible but quite time-consuming, There will also need to be some communication with verifiers to explain the implications if we do make a change.