Hi all, Just to follow up on my previous comments about the thrush migration maps that were posted via link on OBOL: Even though there were obvious errors in these maps, this doesn't mean that they couldn't be improved. However, the way to fix them is not just "more of the same" type of data that embodies the natural clustering tendencies of birders' observations. If Oregon birders still got to the same sites every day, they won't be filling in the prodigious holes in the map. They'll just be reinforcing the same tendencies toward clustering of data. I don't know specifically which algorithms were used to produce the thrush maps that were posted. However, one of the most widely used and most credible methods for temporal/geospatial interpolation is kriging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriging This method also provides a rational way to address the problem of clustered data. In any application of kriging, you can also produce a map of the "kriging errors" which can be used to identify the localized areas in which more observations would minimize the uncertainty in the interpolation. If the folks who produce and publish these fancy maps on the web would also publish the related maps of their kriging errors, these would provide citizen-science oriented birders with -- literally -- a map of the places where they could most productively spend their birding hours. Or to put it in more plain terms: Instead of just showing maps that smooth over huge areas of sparse data -- sometimes with bizarre side effects -- why not give us maps that highlight the places where more data are still needed, in order to produce more credible maps? That seems like a good way to enlist motivated citizen-scientists toward the goal of improving knowledge of bird distributions and migration patterns. Good birding, Joel -- Joel Geier Camp Adair area north of Corvallis