wxw777
My feedback
62 results found
-
75 votes
Thanks for your feedback. At this time, this doesn't fit on our roadmap, but we'll keep it in mind for future product planning.
-
41 votes
-
47 votes
Thanks for the suggestion!
We currently don't have plans to institute this change right now, but this may be included in future changes to SATmap options.
-
73 votes
-
73 votes
-
135 votes
Thanks for your feedback. At this time, this doesn't fit on our roadmap, but we'll keep it in mind for future product planning.
-
190 votes
Great timing! We’re currently working on allowing Junction Boxes and Paths to exist together. Keep an eye out for updates on the WME.
-
60 votes
Great timing! We’re currently working on the option to invert the filter. Keep an eye out for updates on the WME.
-
17 votes
-
14 votes
-
16 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
185 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Looking at TxAgBQ's location, it appears the user submitted the URs on the successive days which I believe is beyond the scope of this request and what staff have been working on. As long the the report is valid and on successive days, that's probably going to be continued to be allowed.
If the user is dropping them to be abusive even after being responded to, the current mechanism would be to escalate to the regional coordinator for a possible ban (after validation by staff).
An error occurred while saving the comment After further discussion with other editors, it may be better to give the user a pop-up indicating only a single report is needed and give them the opportunity to enter more details. As opposed to just rate limiting them. This would help with education. Hands-free, dictated additional info would be ideal when there is no navigator.
An error occurred while saving the comment This sounds like a good idea as editors have no way of knowing if all the requests are from the same person. It also is of no benefit to the user to have us replying to each requesting additional info and then they get bombarded with "spam" from the responses. It ultimately would be a win-win for both editors and users.
I agree that it may be best applied to only L1 editors or users with no editor profile. The range or time-threshold between reports is the only real question mark.
-
321 votes
-
81 votes
Thanks for your feedback. At this time, this doesn't fit on our roadmap, but we'll keep it in mind for future product planning.
-
78 votes
Thanks for your feedback. At this time, this doesn't fit on our roadmap, but we'll keep it in mind for future product planning.
-
85 votes
Thanks for your feedback. At this time, this doesn't fit on our roadmap, but we'll keep it in mind for future product planning.
-
99 votes
Thanks for your feedback. At this time, this doesn't fit on our roadmap, but we'll keep it in mind for future product planning.
-
14 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment This could also be considered a safety issue for some stop signs where they are just over a hill or around a curve and not visible until the last moment. This does not need to be an actionable (route affecting) item. Just an audible user alert.
Community-based rules could state to only add them where the stop sign has restricted visibility.
-
93 votes
-
3 votes
Also, it has been suggested to add PLR segment to have the same rule applied.