That is largely an artifact of the source data, sadly. I place the dots where they were found, if the dataset has that information, otherwise I georef them back to the "findsite" in the data, which aggregates many finds at one place. A lot of these were found in the 1800s and just dont have good find lla data.
Ah, I was referring to the zoom-level-dependent clustering, which I find makes it hard to see the distribution of points when zoomed out all the way. There's still quite a bit of detail even with many of the points sharing the same location.
Comments
That is largely an artifact of the source data, sadly. I place the dots where they were found, if the dataset has that information, otherwise I georef them back to the "findsite" in the data, which aggregates many finds at one place. A lot of these were found in the 1800s and just dont have good find lla data.
Ah, I was referring to the zoom-level-dependent clustering, which I find makes it hard to see the distribution of points when zoomed out all the way. There's still quite a bit of detail even with many of the points sharing the same location.