Isn't it a bit late in the season for this?

[Michael Jordan]

The decision made from the outset with CATE, after discussion with recorders, was that place names would be excluded from the general public access, along with grid references of higher resolution than 10km. There are various coherent arguments in favour of this, current innovations such as 'Creative Commons' licensing notwithstanding. The more comprehensive rationale is, by the way, published in the forthcoming issue of The Forayer

Full data is available to all registered users of the system.

Michael Jordan

[fairplay]

Further to Michael's reply, as you have egg thieves, butterfly thieves, and orchid thieves, you also have fungi thieves who will go to any length to 'collect' a rare species to add to their collection or just to say they have eaten it, if it's known to be edible.

I certainly wouldn't submit a rare find if these safeguards were not in place, and I'm sure you wouldn't either.

Neil.

[Michael Jordan]

Originally Posted by thelawnet

What is meant by 'sensitive aspects'? Personal details of uploaders? Exact locations for all records/rare species only? Something else?

I don't, of course, know what exactly was in mind when this query was raised, but to add briefly to my earlier response, the pros and cons of providing public access to all details of fungal records, including precise locations, are not straightforward and they probably require a clearer understanding of the ramifications than can be easily conveyed here. They affect recorders, landowners, and ultimately the over-riding interests of fungal conservation that Neil rightly alludes to.

An article is due to be published in the winter issue of The Forayer, which explains the rationale of why the principle of restricted access will continue to be applied to the CATE database. The piece will also be reproduced shortly on the News page of the ABFG website. It might be worth reading, particularly for anyone who has been following the current trend towards so-called 'Creative Commons' licensing.

Michael Jordan

[gleditsa]

Originally Posted by fairplay

Further to Michael's reply, as you have egg thieves, butterfly thieves, and orchid thieves, you also have fungi thieves who will go to any length to 'collect' a rare species to add to their collection or just to say they have eaten it, if it's known to be edible.

I certainly wouldn't submit a rare find if these safeguards were not in place, and I'm sure you wouldn't either.

Neil.

correct me if i'm wrong, but as i see it, its not a full safeguard in the full sense of the word, as anyone could join ABFG and, presumably, get full access to the data, and could then freely pass any information to non members ?,
not saying that this is the case, just pointing out that in this weird world we live in, people do the strangest things for even stranger reasons.

j

[Michael Jordan]

Membership of the Association is not in itself an entitlement to full data access. Registered access is obtained by most recorders to CATE on the basis that what they put in they are entitled to benefit from, and it is obtained by other bona fide users of the data such as researchers and LRC managers. However, in each case, the person who gains registered access first signs a Standard Disclosure Agreement that commits them against disclosing the restricted data. There are also electronic safeguards built into the online system. No system is foolproof but this one goes much of the way to being secure.

Michael Jordan