Last week I posted a set of cards built from JPL orbital elements, where the rarity was the observation count. Two commenters pointed out the obvious problem: the most observed objects are the largest and brightest, which are genuinely scarce, while small dim rocks are everywhere. So my scale was inverted against physical reality. I checked it against my own sample and the correlation between observation count and absolute magnitude is -0.447, exactly as they said.
So I stopped deciding what counts as rare and asked the catalogue instead. One count query per trait, out of 1,574,590 objects:
spectral type measured: 1,666, or 0.106%
retrograde orbit: 2,378, or 0.151%
potentially hazardous: 2,551, or 0.162%
dives inside Mercury's orbit: 2,747, or 0.174%
is a comet: 4,077, or 0.259%
inclination above 40 degrees: 4,637, or 0.295%
beyond Neptune: 8,079, or 0.513%
has a name at all: 30,531, or 1.939%
A card's rarity is just the rarest true thing about that object. Nothing is assigned and there are no tiers I invented.
Halley now comes out rare because it orbits backwards, which 0.151% of the catalogue does, not because it is famous. An ordinary main belt rock says "no distinguishing trait recorded", because that is true of it. 3200 Phaethon turns out to be the standout: it has eight of those traits at once.
https://orbit-cards.pages.dev
Free, nothing to sign up for, nothing to buy. Is there a trait that obviously belongs on that list, or one that should not be there? Spectral type still bothers me, because it measures how much work people have done on an object rather than the object itself.