Woodcock Migration Tracker — which data source?
Two realistic options for the data behind the tracker. Here's the plain-English trade-off and my recommendation.
| eBird | GBIF | |
|---|---|---|
| What it gives us | Live, current-season sightings — "woodcock are being reported in Michigan this week." | Historical patterns — "here's when woodcock typically move through." |
| How fresh | Real-time (minutes to hours). | Delayed; not current-season. |
| Data quality for woodcock | Richest and most current — it's the platform birders and hunters actually use. | Broad; it actually re-packages eBird's data plus other sources, just later. |
| Cost | Free. | Free. |
| Catch for a money site | Its terms lean non-commercial — on an ad-supported site we'd need written OK from the Cornell Lab first. | Fine for commercial use if we stick to the openly licensed records (most of them), with credit. |
| Effort to launch | Slightly more (account + usage approval). | Faster — no account needed to start. |
What this means in practice
- If the tracker should feel "live" (this week's movement) → eBird is the better experience, but we should get the Cornell Lab's OK before putting it on a monetized site.
- If a reliable seasonal timing view is enough (typical peak weeks by region) → GBIF ships faster with no licensing worry.
- Either way there's no software cost; the real difference is freshness vs. a licensing conversation.
My recommendation: Start with GBIF — commercially clean and quick to launch, giving a solid seasonal migration-timing tracker. If you'd rather have true live, current-season data, we go eBird and I'll handle getting commercial-use clearance from the Cornell Lab first.
What I need from you: just pick a direction — "GBIF, ship it" or "eBird, pursue the live version." That one call unblocks the build.
Prepared for MichiganBirdHunting.com. Licensing and usage details reflect each provider's current public terms and will be re-confirmed before launch.
