Platform changes impacting legacy Map Search function

30 Jul 2025

Hi NatureMaprs,

Since the early days, NatureMapr has provided a fully flexible, query driven "Map Search" function, which was previously accessible from the "Maps" dropdown menu from within a particular region.

Behind the scenes, this tool, despite its relatively simple appearance, was extremely complex to implement, maintain and support.

The tool was designed to operate within the bounds of NatureMapr's sensitive information handling framework i.e. displaying only the appropriate records to the appropriate people, as well as catering for an unlimited and unrestricted array of flexible query scenarios that thousands of users threw at it on a daily basis. The tool also generated a dynamic species list for all results displayed within the map.

As demand and load on the platform has grown and grown, the Map Search function in its existing form, has become completely unsustainable for NatureMapr to operate.

Beyond the ever-increasing infrastructure costs, this tool also generated a large user support footprint that our team simply aren't funded to support.

As we work to consolidate the community platform into a more sustainable long term position given reduced funding, the legacy Map Search tool has been decommissioned.

The ability to run powerful, open-ended queries against large data sets nationally is a service that national infrastructure providers like the Atlas of Living Australia are better placed to deliver.

We understand that there will be some disappointment within the community at this news.

Targeted Map Search for decision-maker backed programs

NatureMapr will roll out a streamlined and more targeted version of the Map Search function for place-based and species-based programs like NSW BCT Land Libraries, Glossies in the Mist, South East Orchids, Guardians of the Grassy Woodlands and Bats in Backyards.

These programs are decision-maker backed and have a defined scope and an allocated budget to deliver outcomes within that scope - a much more sustainable situation.

This new feature will allow project officers, contributors and landholders involved in these professional programs to interact with the records collected through their program using an interactive map, with results constrained to the scope of the program.

Cheers

Aaron.

30 comments

abread111 wrote:

27 Jul 2025

Not being able to look at the distribution of a species on a map is a great pity, to say the least. Being forced to use ALA will take some getting used to.

waltraud wrote:

28 Jul 2025

I agree with abread; the maps that showed distribution of species were a great asset. I wonder whether it could be reinstalled for the Canberra region where CNM began / or single places / maps?

trevorpreston wrote:

28 Jul 2025

I miss this function as well, I found it really useful and used it frequently, however I understand that the google maps interaction was quite expensive.

trevorpreston wrote:

28 Jul 2025

I wonder if the problem could be solved by having a link on CNM species pages to the corresponding ALA map or page?

RAllen wrote:

29 Jul 2025

Yes this a great loss. I would use this feature to track habitat for the newly discovered Paralucia crosbyi (Violet Copper Butterfly). With regard to ala there maps provide much poorer geographical features and are quite obscure. Paralucia crosbyi does not even feature on ala. Looking at maps for likely plant species was also something that I used frequently when surveying.

ConBoekel wrote:

29 Jul 2025

I can understand the financial constraints but this eliminates one of my main motivations and the main feedback as a contributor.

abread111 wrote:

29 Jul 2025

I also find this a constraint to my role as a location monitor. I have used the map search functions in many ways including in compiling the annual update to the Mount Majura / Mount Ainslie Flora listing, where there are boundary differences between Mt M and Mt A as defined in CNM and as they were historically defined in the original flora surveys. Without this type of search on CNM, I suspect we will be forced to amalgamate the Mt M and Mt A lists into one (which may not be a bad outcome).
I have also used the species maps to compile a list of rare and endangered species in the 60 Ha wider Fair area - this was included in The Fair Mount Majura Nature Reserve Weed Management Plan 2024-29 https://majura.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/The-Fair-Weed-Mangement-Plan-2024-29_final.pdf
Its fine to do the targeted version of map search for the Land Libraries etc, by don't forget moderators need to do targeted searches as well. And we don't get access to these Land Libraries etc ...

JaneR wrote:

29 Jul 2025

Me, too: I will really miss the Mapping function: I use it constantly (did use it constantly). its been useful in so many ways, showing species, checking accuracy of sightings, finding out what's in a reserve and where .

AlisonMilton wrote:

29 Jul 2025

I understand the constraints but this is a real set back. We have been using this to track the number of species in The Pinnacle Nature Reserve as I'm sure other Friends of reserves have been doing. Also been using it to track the number of species in my own backyard.

AaronClausen wrote:

30 Jul 2025

Thanks everyone for the feedback - we don't disagree and we also accept the disappointment associated with this change.

In the (longer term) future, there may be a way to have some kind of constrained "map view" function that could be constrained to specific types of records. E.g. Maybe for Maps or Collections. But we can't see a completely unrestricted and open ended map search tool, in the way that it was previously implemented, being a possibility again.

ConBoekel wrote:

30 Jul 2025

Thanks, Aaron. If there is an opening in the future but only for a restricted option I would like to see species mapped to defined area such as Dryandra Street Woodland.

abread111 wrote:

30 Jul 2025

And I would like to see View Map returned to each species page ( except the sensitive ones, of course). Surely that would not be too hard to implement?

waltraud wrote:

30 Jul 2025

I currently can't upload anything. does anyone else has the problem?

trevorpreston wrote:

30 Jul 2025

Would it be possible to restore just a view map of the various reserves and parks without the species interaction, this is helpful in discovering places to go, how to access, and where reserve boundaries are.

pinnaCLE wrote:

30 Jul 2025

I totally agree with the disappointed folk above. Without the previous ability to map and analyse, the community is restricted to using NatureMapr almost as a trophy cabinet - sightings on display for all to see but unable to be drilled into. Is there some way to store a map for each of the defined polygons that is updated only, say, once a month - live interrogation of 832,000+ sightings is not absolutely vital. Also would valuable to store a similar periodically-updated map for each species. Radar search can be done via ALA so suggest that can go. I feel the mymap for individual users would also be low priority. However, map storage means code-writing and cloud-data implications so it's possibly impractical?
Is there a ballpark figure for the $/user/year it recently costed for open map access by every logged in user?

Mike wrote:

30 Jul 2025

Does the loss of the Map Search function also mean the loss of SRS Species Richness Score and SES Survey Effort Score?

JaneR wrote:

30 Jul 2025

I agree with pinnaCLE: loss of mapping functionality changes NaturMapr platform away from from being rewarding and interactive, and citizen science: into a one-way process.
I don't know anything technical about what's involved with various mapping functions; but if the the suggestions above could be implemented, then that would really help return the interactive aspect of CNM and NatureMapr, which I (and obviously lots of others) value so highly.

And if there is to be no mapping functions, then I guess the name will have to change, too.

Mike wrote:

30 Jul 2025

I have used the mapping function to find species distribution and biodiversity within areas for which I am a moderator.
The versatility of NatureMapr has meant that it has extended beyond its original scope, giving complexity and higher resource requirements.
Perhaps some mapping requirements can be hived off to ALA Biocollect which has funds for such projects:
"BioCollect is designed for scientists, ecologists, citizen scientists and natural resource managers to collect and manage their biodiversity, ecological and natural resource management (NRM) data. It is hosted by the ALA and is free for public use.

BioCollect provides form-based structured data collection for:

1) Assessment and monitoring activities such as:
ad-hoc surveys; and
method-based systematic structured surveys
2) Activity-based projects such as:
revegetation;
rehabilitation; or
weed and pest management projects"
It is already used by some LandCare and Waterwatch groups, and it seems as though projects can set up defined areas rather than the default mapping of ALA.

AlisonMilton wrote:

30 Jul 2025

Yes it seems that all SRS Species Richness Score and SES Survey Effort Score functionality has also been removed. Why introduce such great features only to then remove them so soon. I hate to say it but perhaps it is getting time to just walk away from NatureMapr and rely on other bettter funded projects such as ALA and iNaturalist. This decision would tear my heart out but it seems we are fighting a losing battle with regard to funding of a great product.

waltraud wrote:

31 Jul 2025

CNM was unique before the drop of mapping function and not comparable to ALA, iNaturalist.... It draw in expertise, was great for education etc - I don't need to list all advantages. It would be a great shame if that is all lost. Not sure whether it would be worth to consider reducing the platform again to cover Southern Tableland only, rather than the entire continent? I'm afraid those unique Canberra based functions can't be replicated and CNM would become something like iNaturalist. When it all started on mt majura the idea was to compile an archive of rare and threatened species which apart from other things would inform government, contractors, community about conservation values;, for example, it was important to avoid construction of certain infrastructure or direct the avoidance of orienteering at high conservation sites with small populations of threatened orchids....

sangio7 wrote:

31 Jul 2025

I've come into this discussion late, having somehow missed the announcement thinking it to be the same as one on the previous day (having received the previous day's 3 times already for some reason).

But I too am very disappointed.

I noticed the disappearance of the Map function on the species pages, which is a feature I used almost daily, but thought (hoped) it to be one of the transitory glitches in the system that come and go from time to time. I used it to avoid unnecessarily duplicating a sighting (unless there was something worthwhile about repeating it) and in my role as Friends of The Pinnacle's maintainer of species maps across the Reserve. I used the map function for the Pinnacle NR location page less often but still found it very helpful. These maps have been essential to fotpin for prioritising our efforts in the face of our diminishing effort capacity.

When alerted to this change I, like others who have commented above, thought that it was a diminishment of the implied "contract" between contributors to the platform (without whom there would be no platform) and the platform managers, namely that it was for mutual benefit.

It's great that the platform has convinced people across Australia of its value and to want and use it, and convinced potential funders of its usefulness to them (and I feel reflected pride in that). But it has become increasingly clear to me as a frequent user that the increased usage has unavoidably (despite the huge input of the hard working team behind the scenes) not only come at considerable cost financially, but also now functionally.

It is very disappointing to lose this functionality, but hopefully some way will be found to restore at least some of it.

AaronClausen wrote:

1 Aug 2025

Thanks everyone.

NatureMapr is extremely fortunate to have such a passionate and loyal community surrounding it who are doing citizen science to the absolute highest standard - you are definitely heard and we share your disappointment.

Yes - SRS, SES, Map Search and Dashboards are all closely related and linked to a very busy part of the system that costs heaps to operate and support. These features had to be turned off to reduce consumption and ensure we could keep up with our user support footprint.

The costs of operating a sophisticated tech platform at scale are very real.

As of FY25/26, NatureMapr receives no support from the commonwealth and previously approved ministerial funding in the ACT jurisdiction for the community platform has been pulled as part of last minute budget adjustments.

We are working hard to transition NatureMapr away from reliance on problematic ad hoc environmental and community grants to instead generate sustainable revenue through the delivery of professional, paid programs with real budgets behind them.

If we can build a sustainable business by providing high quality professional tools for decision makers that solve a number of pain points for them in delivering their legislated programs, then the hope is we can trickle down some of that investment into providing improved functionality for the community.

This is why you will see our increased focus and attention on important programs like NSW BCT Land Libraries and NSW Bats in Backyards.

These programs generate important revenue which is subsidising the ongoing operation of the community platform. These programs also have dedicated decision makers sitting behind them, who are keenly interested in the records coming in as part of these programs.

Simultaneously, the professional programs benefit enormously from the helpfulness and expertise that is abundant within the NatureMapr community.

So it is very much a symbiotic relationship - both parts are absolutely vital.

Thanks for your continued support as our team works through this transition period.

abread111 wrote:

5 Aug 2025

I have noticed that I no longer get a daily summary as a consequence of my role as location moderator for several sites.
Is this an unintended consequence of the disappearance of maps?
For Mt Majura, I have now subscribed so I will get the listing of new sightings.
Do I have to also subscribe to my other locations? or will my role as a location moderator be reinstated for email updates?

AaronClausen wrote:

5 Aug 2025

Thanks for letting us know @abread111.

This is unrelated and should behave as you describe without the need to explicitly follow the same locations.

We will investigate now..

AaronClausen wrote:

5 Aug 2025

Hi @abread111 - it should be working as intended, could you please contact us via support AT naturemapr.org and we can investigate this further.

alexwatt wrote:

7 Aug 2025

The map tool is like an essential part of the platform. Having no map is like having twitter with no feed. You need to find a way to make this sustainable - probably a user subscription. I'd pay to use the map. It's a tragedy that the govt funding is being pulled.

abread111 wrote:

12 Aug 2025

I have noticed that in VicFlora the species distribution tab now uses a link to the ALA map for the species. Perhaps CNM can do likewise for the View Map for each species.

galah681 wrote:

20 Aug 2025

I was very disappointed to find the map function was discontinued as I found it very interesting. I was hoping to use it in the next STEP newsletter to show the distribution of Acacia pycnantha in the Southern Tablelands and encourage STEP members to look at this function.

Mike wrote:

20 Aug 2025

With a bit of effort I think you can see the distribution in https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrence/search?q=lsid%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fid.biodiversity.org.au%2Ftaxon%2Fapni%2F51436646&fq=&qualityProfile=ALA#tab_mapView. This includes NatureMapr and physical specimens as well as few from others such as iNaturalist. Not ideal, once you have seen what is possible.

galah681 wrote:

20 Aug 2025

Thank you for the link. I had already looked at this and it will sort of give me what I wanted but not as useful as the CNM maps were.

Please Login or Register to comment.