ArthurChapman
commented
3 years ago Add text at the end of Paragraph 2 in Section 2.2
An example of what can go wrong in not using stable and permanent landmarks was given by Bob Mesibov (Mesibov 2012). He cites the case of nine Cableway support towers that ascend Mount Bellenden Ker in Queensland and which were numbered 1-9 from the top of the mountain to the bottom when installed in the 1970s. Many biologists have used these towers to reference their collection localities (e.g. ‘National Park Reserve 904, Wooroonooran, just S of tower 9, Mt Bellenden Ker cableway'), often with no accompanying georeferences. In 1997 the numbering of the towers was reversed, with the towers numbered from the bottom of the mountain to the top. Without knowing this, users may not be aware of the significant uncertainty in the location and with steep gradients involved (tower altitudes range from 210-1550 m), this can have significant meaning biologically.
@tucotuco to check wording and then add "Ready to Implement" label
Following off-line comment from Bob Mesibov:
@ArthurChapman to write some words into Section 2.2 with reference to a paper by Bob that introduces a Case Study on precision. Also reference that journal editors and reviewers are becoming increasingly aware of issues of location specification, and that it will become increasingly important to take best practices into account when documenting location in scientific works.
Add reference to http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.247.4195