The smartphone fallacy – when spatial data are reported at spatial scales finer than the organisms themselves
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;">Thankfully, the days when specimen localities could be described in extremely vague terms such as “Peru” or “Indochina” are long gone. But the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Latitude and longitude data of specimens and stud...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Pensoft Publishers
2018-08-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers of Biogeography |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2n3349jg |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849315673535152128 |
|---|---|
| author | Shai Meiri |
| author_facet | Shai Meiri |
| author_sort | Shai Meiri |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;">Thankfully, the days when specimen localities could be described in extremely vague terms such as “Peru” or “Indochina” are long gone. But the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Latitude and longitude data of specimens and study areas (such as small nature reserves) are nowadays commonly reported to the 0.000001 of a degree (or 0.01 of a second) or even more “precisely”. This is done either because of converting across measurement systems or because hand-held devices and internet sources provide this kind of precision. We probably report this degree of precision because we are reluctant to round – feeling it would make the data better and more “scientific”. I point out the scale referred to by different degrees of geographic precision (e.g., ~10cm for 6 decimal places) and argue that such degree of precision is false for two reasons: first, it is finer than actually achievable by hand held devices such as smartphones and GPS receivers (and much finer than we can tell from a map). Second, for large animals, such precision can refer to one part of the organism, and not another. I urge scientists to use simple reality checks when reporting latitude and longitude data and report precision at meaningful scales.</p> |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-4dfa9142c1b5459cb1b0d487aabe6a05 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1948-6596 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2018-08-01 |
| publisher | Pensoft Publishers |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers of Biogeography |
| spelling | doaj-art-4dfa9142c1b5459cb1b0d487aabe6a052025-08-20T03:52:04ZengPensoft PublishersFrontiers of Biogeography1948-65962018-08-01101-210.21425/F5FBG38642ark:13030/qt2n3349jgThe smartphone fallacy – when spatial data are reported at spatial scales finer than the organisms themselvesShai Meiri0School of Zoology, Tel Aviv University, 6997801, Tel Aviv, Israel; Steinhardt Museum of Natural History, Tel Aviv University, 6997801, Tel Aviv, Israel<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%;">Thankfully, the days when specimen localities could be described in extremely vague terms such as “Peru” or “Indochina” are long gone. But the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Latitude and longitude data of specimens and study areas (such as small nature reserves) are nowadays commonly reported to the 0.000001 of a degree (or 0.01 of a second) or even more “precisely”. This is done either because of converting across measurement systems or because hand-held devices and internet sources provide this kind of precision. We probably report this degree of precision because we are reluctant to round – feeling it would make the data better and more “scientific”. I point out the scale referred to by different degrees of geographic precision (e.g., ~10cm for 6 decimal places) and argue that such degree of precision is false for two reasons: first, it is finer than actually achievable by hand held devices such as smartphones and GPS receivers (and much finer than we can tell from a map). Second, for large animals, such precision can refer to one part of the organism, and not another. I urge scientists to use simple reality checks when reporting latitude and longitude data and report precision at meaningful scales.</p>http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2n3349jgbiogeographyspatial precisiondecimal degreesGoogle mapsGPS smartphones |
| spellingShingle | Shai Meiri The smartphone fallacy – when spatial data are reported at spatial scales finer than the organisms themselves Frontiers of Biogeography biogeography spatial precision decimal degrees Google maps GPS smartphones |
| title | The smartphone fallacy – when spatial data are reported at spatial scales finer than the organisms themselves |
| title_full | The smartphone fallacy – when spatial data are reported at spatial scales finer than the organisms themselves |
| title_fullStr | The smartphone fallacy – when spatial data are reported at spatial scales finer than the organisms themselves |
| title_full_unstemmed | The smartphone fallacy – when spatial data are reported at spatial scales finer than the organisms themselves |
| title_short | The smartphone fallacy – when spatial data are reported at spatial scales finer than the organisms themselves |
| title_sort | smartphone fallacy when spatial data are reported at spatial scales finer than the organisms themselves |
| topic | biogeography spatial precision decimal degrees Google maps GPS smartphones |
| url | http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2n3349jg |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT shaimeiri thesmartphonefallacywhenspatialdataarereportedatspatialscalesfinerthantheorganismsthemselves AT shaimeiri smartphonefallacywhenspatialdataarereportedatspatialscalesfinerthantheorganismsthemselves |