Dear Markus, Dear all, Thanks a lot for your answers so far. I understand that both the use for specifying a range and for reflecting uncertainties on measurements can go in this field, in the later case / for point data I would also be in favor of having elevationInMeters and elevationUncertaintyInMeters. Given the use of min/max to represent uncertainty, I am again puzzled whether it's actually a good idea of having the same value for both fields if you have only one value at hand (as this could be interpreted as 0 uncertainty...) Regarding the location precision, I am also puzzled why there is both coordinateUncertaintyInMeters and coordinatePrecision... With best regards, Aaike De Wever On 3 Jul 2012, at 10:41, Markus Döring (GBIF) wrote: Hi, I always considered the min/max terms for elevation and depth to be useful to express uncertainties. But if that is the main or only use case wouldn't it be less confusing to treat uncertainty the same way across all geospatial terms? I would much prefer to work with elevationInMeters and elevationUncertaintyInMeters than min max. Markus PS: There are actually 4 terms for location precision right now: coordinateUncertaintyInMeters coordinatePrecision pointRadiusSpatialFit footprintSpatialFit