Remove generalized records

[LienReyserhove]

I know we discussed this issue before (and to be honest, I can't remember why we concluded to keep them in), but in hindsight, I believe we should remove the generalized records (those coordinates generalized to a 4x4km IFBL grid). This because:

1. The contract specifies that all records should be published as point records.
2. It only concerns 116 records

I also wonder why georeferenceRemarks is set to coordinates are centroid of used grid square for 2745 records. I suppose this is due to other reasons then to secrecy reasons?

[LouisNatagora]

There are in fact 2745 records.

The 116 value is the result of a mistake I made (confusion between hiding the location and data not allowed to be published before a given date). [By the way, fixing this important error will result in a slightly different total amount of data.]

2745 records out of 126477, that is 2%.

You decide if I remove them or not.

[LouisNatagora]

After needed fixing total count is:
126368 : with generalized data
123720 : without "generalized data"
Difference is still 2%

[LouisNatagora]

I send both files by WeTransfer.

[LienReyserhove]

I am still in favor of removing the generalized data, in line with my earlier comment

[LienReyserhove]

After discussing this with @peterdesmet, we do believe that the ca 3000 generalized records are a valuable addition to the dataset, so they can be included (very sorry for the confusion)

[LienReyserhove]

The current dataset published on GBIF is the one without generalized data. Could you please update the dataset with the 2648 generalized records? Also pay attention that this dataset has the datasetID field updated with the DOI :-)

[LouisNatagora]

You've got lynx eyes ;)
Fixed: generalized data are now present, along with the DOI as an URL for all sightings.