I wondered what everyone thinks of this. For me whenever I look at a map I really miss the default not being to 10km which allowed an instant impressions of patterns, e.g. that a species was mostly coastal, or follows the chalk in southern England, or is clearly being influenced by patchy LERC data with abrupt distribution changes from county to county.

Consider my favourite dragonfly, which I looked up the distribution for after seeing it at one of its few sites in Norfolk last week.

Compare the Dragonfly Soc NBN interactive map:
https://british-dragonflies.org.uk/spec … ed-skimmer

with the easy map
https://easymap.nbnatlas.org/EasyMap?tv … p;retina=2

On the 100km map shown on the dragonfly soc's site, you'd probably think this species was most widespread in southern Britain, whereas on the 10km map it is clearly more widespread in the west with only scattered records in the east and a couple of strongholds in New Forest etc.

Of course the first thing you see on the atlas is the dot map, which I also find much harder to read than the 10km map but at least gives more of a useful distribution impression than the 100km squares do.

TBH I am generally only using the Atlas at the moment to get the tvk for the easy map URL, as that is quicker than coaxing a similar map out of the atlas itself (via searching, then records, map of records, change to 10km grid and end up with something that still doesn't look as nice).