[orebird] Re: eBird County Filters
- From: Russ Namitz <namitzr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: OReBird <orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:03:07 -0700
I suspect that I will strike a compromise in the middle. Big Days usually keep
track of species, not numbers. NAMCs and CBCs are usually divided in small
polygons. The Raptor Routes I might have trouble with, but I think that the
purpose of eBird should be kept in mind which is sometimes in contradiction
with how people want to use eBird.
Russ
From: tc@xxxxxxxxxx
To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [orebird] Re: eBird County Filters
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:39:19 -0800
Russ, I look at it a little differently. I allow for the exceptional events –
Big Days, Raptor Routes, Migration Counts, Breeding Bird Surveys and CBC’s.
There you can get significantly higher counts of individuals. Twenty-five
GHO’s would still be high, but I would set it in the 10-15 range rather than 3
or 4 that one observer may expect to see. Tom From:
orebird-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:orebird-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Russ Namitz
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 11:26 PM
To: OReBird
Subject: [orebird] eBird County Filters I'm sorry, I haven't made it through
all the archives yet. I'm sure this question has been answered. I'm going
through the Harney County filters and thinking to myself, yes, of course there
are 25 Great Horned Owls in Harney County, but no observer should be submitting
this number from a single checklist. So, my thought is to set filters from the
perspective of a single checklist, not from a county standpoint. Thoughts? Russ
Other related posts:
