More controlled values for featureType

[peterdesmet]

Originally posted by @vechocho in https://github.com/gbif/ipt/issues/2209#issuecomment-1821395994

@peterdesmet on the featureType as it is not a mandatory field, maybe consider using other or let people use their own vocabulary or should I open a issue on the camtrap github? As i see now all of the features have relation with roads or places with easy access. On our deployment we put the cameras on places where we see animal crossing, or they go for salt. sometimes on the mountains on the andes we dont have trees... So i see the vocabulary is more made for forest type ecosystems and not for deserts or andean types. On our case the cameras are plced by ranger that go on places not open on the protected areas for more people.

[peterdesmet]

@vechocho, quick answers:

1. We decided to remove other from controlled vocabularies (see https://github.com/tdwg/camtrap-dp/issues/251), because it defeats the purpose of a controlled vocabulary a bit. Rather, we want people to suggest more values for a controlled vocabulary, so it becomes better overall. This is exactly what you are doing here.
2. The featureType vocabulary was borrowed from CTMS, but I agree it has a limited scope. What values would you suggest to add to the vocabulary?
3. Note that presence of salt can be indicated as baitUse=TRUE. This doesn't specify the type of bait though, for which you have to rely on tags or comments. I'll let others weigh in on whether salt is a type of feature.