[Taxacom] Data quality of aggregated datasets

[David Campbell]

More generally, this illustrates the importance of having someone with some
clue about the relevant physical and biological geography involved in the
process.  I dealt with a large number of old labels which had been
databased as Viti Island.  However, examining the original label revealed
that it had been Islands, a much more general locality, particularly if one
happens to know that Viti is an older spelling of Fiji.  As is, the
database suggests a specific island, and thus undue precision.

> In your example, the critical piece of additional information is
> "campground". If the hypothetical label was just "4 mi E Logan", I don't
> think you could do much better than the automatic estimated location. But
> "campground 4 mi E Logan" lets you (yes you, an expert :) snuffle around
> for that feature, find it, assess whether it's likely to be the campground
> in question (how many other campgrounds are in that area?), and if it seems
> reasonable, assign that as the high-probability collection location.
>
>
>