Hi E.Gracia

It is highly possible that publishers are making increased use of the “depth” field in the data they publish. We are a real time indexing system and people are publishing datasets constantly, so it will vary over time. There have been no recent changes to the interpretation, so any change you see can only be due to new or updated datasets published through the network.

There are approximately 60million records where “depth" is not empty but of those, there are 41m with a value of “1” and 6.6m with a value of “0” which I would consider dubious and worthy of further investigation before use (they are commonly used values for NULL in databasing).

Attached is the distribution of values that we see for the “depth” field for all records.

I hope this is helpful.

Best wishes, Tim

On 02 Nov 2015, at 12:29, ptrans2004es ptrans2004es@yahoo.es wrote:

Hello,

I work mainly with occurrences from marine species that I programmatically download through GBIF API. Maybe it is just an impression, but it seems to me that there are now clearly more occurrences with depth values than some months ago. I’ve seen for some species data downloaded 3-4 months ago that I had around 200 occurrences with not-null depth value; and redownloading them now, there is around ten times more occurrences with not-null depth value. I was very surprised! Can this be possible? Maybe there was changes in API or reloaded data in last months that can explain that? (if not, it should be my own problem, but I don’t understand, I don’t think I modified anything…)

Thank you very much.

Best regards,

E.Gracia _______________________________________________ API-users mailing list API-users@lists.gbif.org mailto:API-users@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/api-users http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/api-users