This is something that may be possible in the near future. There's supposedly in testing a (national?) system for querying gate status for rail crossings. If that system has a public query api or private access can by negotiated by Google/Waze, it's certainly feasible to implement.
Tons of construction visible there and we all know aerials and street view are outdated before we even get new ones, so maybe they mean the other form of "turn not allowed" and that it's not allowed but should be?DwarfLord wrote:Turn not allowed -- but who cares?
Yeah not gonna happen. As was demonstrated with anonymized taxi data it was trivial to correlate date and time with other public data to identify who the fares were, seems celebs generally don't tip. Same thing can happen if you start assigning GUIDs to reporters.CBenson wrote:Receptive? Maybe. Make it a high enough priority that it would be likely to happen in my lifetime? I doubt it.taco909 wrote:Do you think Staff would be receptive to assigning some kind of unique, but random identifier to the reporter?
And doesn't solve the PII leakage.taco909 wrote:But that won't tell us if the same reporter has been reporting the same problem every day for a week.bz2012 wrote:You could 'rescramble' the random number for a particular user after a set period of time.
Say 30 minutes.
That way, several reports from the same user, issued within 30 minutes, could be correlated, but after that, no way to track.
Hope you went to maps.google.com, pulled up the GSV, then copied the short-link into a response to that UR and marked it Not Identified.dude463 wrote:
Re: Jolly drivers