Incomplete data I

Geoscientists are glued to maps, are they not? Whatever analysis undertaken always goes back to the map, where the original samples were collected. While hours in the lab may significantly exceed the time in the field, nevertheless, the data collected from all of that analysis ultimately gets plotted back on the map or at least referenced to the map which shows the sample locations.
The map then shows up in the publication of the study, with interpretations of the data at the sample points plotted on the map and or sections. Since in all probability the location on the map was either plotted on a field map (are those used those anymore?) or extracted from GPS, and entered into the mapping program, why not include the mapped location of the sample in the publication? Add a table that provides sample ID, latitude, longitude (or UTM) coordinates to the manuscript? This should not be too difficult (even if the publisher insists on putting it in a supplementary file)? And what about all those "representative" geochemical analyses with unknown locations? Why not include all of the analyses in supplementary files with their sample locations included?)
The results of any study, to be of any fundamental value, need to be reproducible. That is SCIENCE 101. Locations on a minuscule map graphic are not enough, requiring the reader measure out the locations using a mapping program (e.g., undertake a screen capture of the map graphic -- "alt-prt sc" -- saved to Google Drive or Dropbox, crop and save-as, insert into Google Earth, position the map, add data points, save to a kml file, open the kml file in a text editor, extract the latitude and longitude) or digitizer.

[Originally posted July 1, 2019; updated July 5, 2020]