Species-specific survey forms - data sharing with LERCs

Submitted by SWSEIC on

Whilst use of species-specific survey forms is still relatively limited, it does appear to be growing slowly and more forms are being created and promoted. I would like to draw attention to loss of detail that occurs when data entered using these forms are shared with LERCs. For example, for records entered via the dragonfly form all abundances are omitted as these are custom fields on the form and the data are not parsed into the standard fields in the download. For Bats, important and useful fields such as the presence of a roost are omitted from the downloads. And it is the same for data entered other forms too. This seems far from ideal.

If I have to tell a local recorder who has submitted a detailed record that details on abundance etc. are missing when the data arrives at the LERC it doesn't reflect well on us or indeed on BRC. Could this issue at least be put on the list of things to look at?

[And then there is the issue of sharing 'sensitive' records at full resolution, but that is a separate issue which remains unresolved...]




Submitted by iRecord support on Fri, 10/12/2021 - 18:17


Thanks Mark. I have logged those points, and agree that it would be good to find solutions if we can.


Submitted by Mike Averill on Sat, 16/12/2023 - 09:43


Has there been any development with the problem of LBRC's not having access to specific fields such as the species survey forms used by the British Dragonfly Society?

Submitted by Nik Knight on Tue, 20/02/2024 - 09:32


The absence of roost information and similar deficiencies in downloads are the reasons why I advise bat recorders not to use iRecord.

Data reaching iRecord from the BCT Sunset Sunrise survey is so deficient in essential information that I have to reject all such records.

I reported these issues in emails dated 7/2/23 and 4/1/22 but received no response.