This would be the editor tool associated with the client app feature, which can be found here. viewtopic.php?f=657&t=172309 Seeing as I've already wrote a lengthy post over there, I'm going to try to keep it to the point here, and not talk about the client side too much. Editors in areas that do not permit cameras know all too well the annoyance of camera flags by Wazers appearing all the time in their editing area, despite the ban on cameras being common knowledge. It creates an unneeded workload to track down all of these random reports of nonexistent or misdefined cameras. This feature aims to eliminate that extra work.

The editor tool could go one of two ways.

The first approach is to use existing regions. Waze is pretty good at recognizing regions and where you are in them, and we could use this to our advantage. This approach would be accessible only to high-level (Possibly lvl 4 and up)/ area managers, and potentially lower-level editors granted temporary permissions by their area manager. The existing regions of states and cities are currently something that cannot be interacted with by most editors. This approach would allow editors to enter a simple interface upon clicking the city name over the region. This interface would likely consist of some simple features, perhaps a field to denote the census population, maybe a field to assign/edit a ZIP code, and most importantly - a simple little checkbox. This checkbox would control a setting that would allow or disallow camera reports in the city. Like I said about the client side, reports would either be disabled, or the reports automatically deleted. Any existing cameras inside the city with the activated setting would also be automatically deleted. The implementation of this might be complex, but if it could work, it would be charmingly simple, a restricted bank of very minimal settings.

The second approach involves the creation of a tool. This tool would be like the region tool for places, but it would not appear on the client app like place regions do, instead, it would be invisible, seen only by editors. Of course, this would be restricted to high-level editors/area managers, and lower-level editors with temporary permissions from an area manager. This tool would be used to create a region or geofence of sorts, with the same effect as the city setting I mentioned above, but addressing only the camera function. When a client enters this area invisibly marked by the editor, camera reports would either be disabled or automatically deleted, and existing cameras would be automatically deleted as well.

The implementation of this feature could save a lot of hassle for editors affected by this, as personally, in my humble little editing area of 230 square miles, I usually have to delete 40-50 camera flags PER DAY. This could save time and work.