So with all these firmware updates came geo fences and no fly zones. Now I can't even fly my Phantom 4 in my back yard anymore. I am too close to a theme park apparently. This has now rendered my $1,200 investment almost worthless.  Can't even fly over my roof to check for hurricane damge. So the question is why has DJI decided to be a defacto FAA? Why have they decioded to be the policemen of flight paths?  I think there is a possible class action suit here for selling a product that they then made non functional for some customers. I think the job of DJI is to build and sell drones, not act a regulatory body. Just my opinion.

How far are you from the theme park?

ALABAMA Posted at 2017-9-13 07:34
How far are you from the theme park?

Right on the boarder of the red circle. I think I am really outside the circle by one block but the DJI app has me right on the line so no-fly.

DOnt feel bad, I am in the same boat...... Im close to a military base and there is a nice open park which is so close I cant even fly.

BagoDJIoperator Posted at 2017-9-13 07:45
DOnt feel bad, I am in the same boat...... Im close to a military base and there is a nice open park which is so close I cant even fly.

Yes it is frustrating. Like I said I am not sure why DJI has become a defacto FAA. Its not their job to tell people where they can and can't fly. Their job is to build drones. The FAA handles the flight rules and enforcement. I guess they are  afraid the FAA will shut them down and only let people buy the cheap $50 drones that have a range of 100 feet.

hitman007 Posted at 2017-9-13 07:49
Yes it is frustrating. Like I said I am not sure why DJI has become a defacto FAA. Its not their job to tell people where they can and can't fly. Their job is to build drones. The FAA handles the flight rules and enforcement. I guess they are  afraid the FAA will shut them down and only let people buy the cheap $50 drones that have a range of 100 feet.

Just remember we had dumbasses, excuse my language do dumb stuff. Im guessing the NFZ they are trying to make it safer.

All unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operators must abide by all regulations from organizations such as the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) and any other applicable airspace regulations in their area.
In order to increase flight safety and prevent accidental flights in restricted areas, DJI has introduced a No Fly Zones feature to help everyone use their DJI products safely and legally., any map provided by DJI is for advisory purposes only. It is always the user’s responsibility to determine what laws or regulations apply to any operation, and to obtain any required government authorizations. If you want to fly the drone in a restricted area or no fly zone, you can learn more here: http://www.dji.com/flysafe
Thanks for your kind understanding.

DJI Thor Posted at 2017-9-13 23:19
All unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operators must abide by all regulations from organizations such as the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) and any other applicable airspace regulations in their area.
In order to increase flight safety and prevent accidental flights in restricted areas, DJI has introduced a No Fly Zones feature to help everyone use their DJI products safely and legally., any map provided by DJI is for advisory purposes only. It is always the user’s responsibility to determine what laws or regulations apply to any operation, and to obtain any required government authorizations. If you want to fly the drone in a restricted area or no fly zone, you can learn more here: http://www.dji.com/flysafe
Thanks for your kind understanding.

Incorrect sir, and you should have realized this before commenting.  The ICAO is, as you spelled out, an international body that regulates international airspace and flight regulations between all signatory nations.  It does not effect in any way shape matter or form actual flight operations inside the borders of the United States and its territories, the control of that airspace falls under the sole and direct purview of the FAA only.  Therefore, indirectly you are correct all UAV operators must adhere to established FAA regulations as well as applicable local laws within the US borders.  
Flight safety is always extremely important, however, the corporation of DJI is not an airspace regulatory body and does not have controlling authority of US airspace.  Even if a UAV operator has FAA authority to operate in a DJI designated NFZ you have still created the necessity to have the owner of the UAV get clearance from DJI.  This is regardless of whether the owner wishes to fly in an NFZ or not or has permission to do so or not.

Genghis9 Posted at 2017-9-13 23:46
Incorrect sir, and you should have realized this before commenting.  The ICAO is, as you spelled out, an international body that regulates international airspace and flight regulations between all signatory nations.  It does not effect in any way shape matter or form actual flight operations inside the borders of the United States and its territories, the control of that airspace falls under the sole and direct purview of the FAA only.  Therefore, indirectly you are correct all UAV operators must adhere to established FAA regulations as well as applicable local laws within the US borders.  
Flight safety is always extremely important, however, the corporation of DJI is not an airspace regulatory body and does not have controlling authority of US airspace.  Even if a UAV operator has FAA authority to operate in a DJI designated NFZ you have still created the necessity to have the owner of the UAV get clearance from DJI.  This is regardless of whether the owner wishes to fly in an NFZ or not or has permission to do so or not.

Correct statement Genghis9.

And Thor, those rules are the same throughout the entire world. The DJI's GEO/NFZ can be a great tool for helping the pilot and avoiding flying somewhere they do not have to, but at the same time it's too inaccurate that it prevent people from flying where they may according to local authorities. Therefore, the DJI's GEO/NFZ should have an ON/OFF button to switch off as soon the pilot needs it.

Hope DJI will be ordered that there GEO/NFZ shut be voluntary by the authorities around the world !!!

Regards Leif.

Landbo Posted at 2017-9-14 01:15
Correct statement Genghis9.

And Thor, those rules are the same throughout the entire world. The DJI's GEO/NFZ can be a great tool for helping the pilot and avoiding flying somewhere they do not have to, but at the same time it's too inaccurate that it prevent people from flying where they may according to local authorities. Therefore, the DJI's GEO/NFZ should have an ON/OFF button to switch off as soon the pilot needs it.

'Hope DJI will be ordered that there GEO/NFZ shut be voluntary by the authorities around the world !!! '

No 'authoritiy' has the power to order DJI to do anything about the GEO system, and in probably all cases where the GEO system is active, it will have been designed through consultation with those authorities.

Genghis9 Posted at 2017-9-13 23:46
Incorrect sir, and you should have realized this before commenting.  The ICAO is, as you spelled out, an international body that regulates international airspace and flight regulations between all signatory nations.  It does not effect in any way shape matter or form actual flight operations inside the borders of the United States and its territories, the control of that airspace falls under the sole and direct purview of the FAA only.  Therefore, indirectly you are correct all UAV operators must adhere to established FAA regulations as well as applicable local laws within the US borders.  
Flight safety is always extremely important, however, the corporation of DJI is not an airspace regulatory body and does not have controlling authority of US airspace.  Even if a UAV operator has FAA authority to operate in a DJI designated NFZ you have still created the necessity to have the owner of the UAV get clearance from DJI.  This is regardless of whether the owner wishes to fly in an NFZ or not or has permission to do so or not.

The NFZ that is causing the problem has presumably been specified by the FAA, it is therefore the FAA that is preventing the flight, not DJI.  Resolving the problem requires the FAA to specify their NFZ more accurately, or remove it - I don't understand why a theme park should have a NFZ.

My nearest NFZ extends only about 30m beyond the boundary of the "theme park" (prison), I see no reason to complain about that.

Geebax Posted at 2017-9-14 01:27
'Hope DJI will be ordered that there GEO/NFZ shut be voluntary by the authorities around the world !!! '

No 'authoritiy' has the power to order DJI to do anything about the GEO system, and in probably all cases where the GEO system is active, it will have been designed through consultation with those authorities.

Yes, actually Geebax, at least here in Europe and for you as Australia probelig an unexpected side. Here we have something called consumer rights, where an manufacturer must not impair the value of the product without giving compensation. When we could remove the GEO/NFZ fenze it was ok it was installed, but after it has been forced to people, anyone who bought their drone before the effort was introduced can return their purchase and demand a rather large amount of money back. If the seller refuses, you can send the case to the "Danish Consumer Complaints Board" and they have previously won for custemers over large American Apple.

I'm just coming in from outside and have flown with both my P4A and Mavic. On both flights I have to lock up the DJI's GEO/NFZ areas for every 100 meters I fly. This applies to both vessels. This happens about Once every month, I have broken a flight day on that account. Do you know this one on the picture here Geebax ???

[url=]Picture[/url]

Regards Leif.

Nigel_ Posted at 2017-9-14 02:58
The NFZ that is causing the problem has presumably been specified by the FAA, it is therefore the FAA that is preventing the flight, not DJI.  Resolving the problem requires the FAA to specify their NFZ more accurately, or remove it - I don't understand why a theme park should have a NFZ.

My nearest NFZ extends only about 30m beyond the boundary of the "theme park" (prison), I see no reason to complain about that.

Nigel,

Sorry, I have heard that worn out explanation before.  I do not know where DJI gets its info but it is not the FAA, possibly in part, but not entirely.  Even if arguably they do, it is likely to be very dated information.  I have identified several noted airspace issues with the map they use here in the states.  No, I have not tried to get them to update it/correct it, as I do not recognize DJI as a controlling authority, here again that is solely the FAA's jurisdiction.  In addition, this supposed amusement park example is a perfect example, if it is indeed a NFZ it is likely due to it being a security concern, making it a ROZ.  ROZs tend to be temporary, as parks are not always in operation (seasonal) or go out of business etc. which means those ROZs are temporary and typically activated through NOTAM.  Therefore, there are ROZs or other restricted airspace that we could actually be flying in because DJI does not show those updates.  Because they are a corporation, NOT an airspace control authority for the USA.

I have had this discussion here before.  NO I do not wish to fly over a prison, nor the capital, nor an airfield (unless cleared), nor any other place that is unsafe, unwise, or unnecessary.  THE complaint is very simple; a foreign corporation has set itself up as a controlling authority for US airspace, period.  If I were cleared today to operate from a small limited use airfield by the FAA and airfield ops, I could not.  I would have to e-mail some foreigner in another country to ask mother may I, and then wait for them to ask for a note from whomever to prove I was cleared, and then they would decide to unlock that NFZ at some point, maybe.  If they do, it is not likely to happen for a day or so at best, from everything I have read from others attempting the same.  Even further, if they do it is usually only for 24 hours, while the FAA could be granting a waiver for a month.  

In summary, if you are satisfied and happy with added layers of bureaucracy and foreign companies controlling your country’s airspace that is OK with me, I am not and I think it is unnecessarily redundant and controlling of my property internally (meaning I have no say in the matter).  With respect to the later, I know of very few corporations that do this, actually I can think of none, but I am sure you or someone can stretch out an example somewhere though I doubt it is truly comparable; I can think of many counter examples where they do not.

Geebax Posted at 2017-9-14 01:27
'Hope DJI will be ordered that there GEO/NFZ shut be voluntary by the authorities around the world !!! '

No 'authoritiy' has the power to order DJI to do anything about the GEO system, and in probably all cases where the GEO system is active, it will have been designed through consultation with those authorities.

Geebax,
Actually, here in the states the law/courts have the authority to force DJI to sell a product without placing after market restrictions on that private property (once bought and paid for).
Now, DJI could in response, choose not to sell their products in the US (there goes 30% of their market share) or comply with the court order or enter arbitration to work out a reasonable solution to their production and sales of their product (something as simple as allowing the purchaser to opt in or out).
Now whether that happens remains to be seen, but all it would take is a lawsuit where the plaintiff wins.

Interesting thread, and i can understand the frustration living near a NFZ fortunately I live near none (besides the basics, Class B,C airports, Power, Prisons). Technologies and country borders are a sticky situation I'm not sure but GEO fencing may be a regulation DJI must implement for sale in the USA, such as i can't buy a PC from dell in the USA and take it to another country. Or you could look at auto sales, all imports must have the federal emissions standards installed. I looked at the GEO for the closet amusement park near me, it's Ceder Point and it's a major one, but it's not listed as a NFZ I'm not sure what park you are referring to, but I'm assuming Disney. not sure why they would be NFZ and other Major attractions are not?
I do feel your pain though.

Landbo Posted at 2017-9-14 03:48
Yes, actually Geebax, at least here in Europe and for you as Australia probelig an unexpected side. Here we have something called consumer rights, where an manufacturer must not impair the value of the product without giving compensation. When we could remove the GEO/NFZ fenze it was ok it was installed, but after it has been forced to people, anyone who bought their drone before the effort was introduced can return their purchase and demand a rather large amount of money back. If the seller refuses, you can send the case to the "Danish Consumer Complaints Board" and they have previously won for custemers over large American Apple.

I'm just coming in from outside and have flown with both my P4A and Mavic. On both flights I have to lock up the DJI's GEO/NFZ areas for every 100 meters I fly. This applies to both vessels. This happens about Once every month, I have broken a flight day on that account. Do you know this one on the picture here Geebax ???

I doubt any country has laws that protect the consumber from retrospective restrictions to operation. But in any event that picture is giving you the option of agreeing to the terms and continuing your flight. BTW, most civilised countries have consumer rights.

Genghis9 Posted at 2017-9-14 09:35
Geebax,
Actually, here in the states the law/courts have the authority to force DJI to sell a product without placing after market restrictions on that private property (once bought and paid for).
Now, DJI could in response, choose not to sell their products in the US (there goes 30% of their market share) or comply with the court order or enter arbitration to work out a reasonable solution to their production and sales of their product (something as simple as allowing the purchaser to opt in or out).

You missed one. DJI could ignore the court order altogether, as they are an incorporated Chinese company under private ownership, and need not abide by any US laws.

Geebax Posted at 2017-9-14 16:55
You missed one. DJI could ignore the court order altogether, as they are an incorporated Chinese company under private ownership, and need not abide by any US laws.

Yes point made, however, I did not, as I stated that DJI could choose to not sell in the US.  If they ignored a valid court order then their business could be shuttered, imports impounded, and/or fined for violating said court order.  If your point is they could go on being a global company absolutely, I thought I indicated that.  However, if you are saying they could ignore a directive and still conduct business in the US not so much.  Yet, I will grant you that private citizens could purchase their product say in Canada and take it back to the states.  Although they may find that there will be no support for their product if being used in the US proper.

Genghis9 Posted at 2017-9-14 17:11
Yes point made, however, I did not, as I stated that DJI could choose to not sell in the US.  If they ignored a valid court order then their business could be shuttered, imports impounded, and/or fined for violating said court order.  If your point is they could go on being a global company absolutely, I thought I indicated that.  However, if you are saying they could ignore a directive and still conduct business in the US not so much.  Yet, I will grant you that private citizens could purchase their product say in Canada and take it back to the states.  Although they may find that there will be no support for their product if being used in the US proper.

I would be interested if anyone could provide evidence that shows anyone was able to take legal action against DJI in the US. I have been on this forum for several years now and have seen countless threats to do so, but as far as I am aware, no-one has yet succeeded.

Circular NZF's are a problem.  There was a thread a while back but real odd shaped NZFs get turned into circles by DJI and t makes the DJI NZFs sometimes *much* larger than what was intended.

Geebax Posted at 2017-9-14 18:03
I would be interested if anyone could provide evidence that shows anyone was able to take legal action against DJI in the US. I have been on this forum for several years now and have seen countless threats to do so, but as far as I am aware, no-one has yet succeeded.

The dark side of the US legal system, you can always find some bottom feeding lawyer to sue someone in this country ala the lady who sued McDonalds for getting hot coffee and won.  Then there is the corporations who will file a lawsuit against a private citizen to achieve intimidation or some concession.  
The problem with a suit here in the context you ask is first you have to find cause and then you have to convince a lawyer to take on the fight and then you start the process.  If you don't have deep enough pockets and a lot of time to see it through it makes the prospects for John Q public to even get started impossible.  Most corporations, like DJI, have buildings full of lawyers that can just tie up any lawsuit frivolous or otherwise for years before it even gets heard in court.  The only way it happens in that context is usually through class action or the government gets involved i.e. a state's attorney general etc.  Thus far to date I know of no lawsuit along the lines discussed.  There was one brought by a former North American employee and it never went to trial as it was settled out of court.

Genghis9 Posted at 2017-9-14 18:17
The dark side of the US legal system, you can always find some bottom feeding lawyer to sue someone in this country ala the lady who sued McDonalds for getting hot coffee and won.  Then there is the corporations who will file a lawsuit against a private citizen to achieve intimidation or some concession.  
The problem with a suit here in the context you ask is first you have to find cause and then you have to convince a lawyer to take on the fight and then you start the process.  If you don't have deep enough pockets and a lot of time to see it through it makes the prospects for John Q public to even get started impossible.  Most corporations, like DJI, have buildings full of lawyers that can just tie up any lawsuit frivolous or otherwise for years before it even gets heard in court.  The only way it happens in that context is usually through class action or the government gets involved i.e. a state's attorney general etc.  Thus far to date I know of no lawsuit along the lines discussed.  There was one brought by a former North American employee and it never went to trial as it was settled out of court.

Genghis is correct on all points. But without making it complex I stand by my original simplistic statement. DJI is making themselves a  de facto FAA. Why and to what end? DJI is in the business of making and selling drones. Not in the business of policing its customers nor do they have appointed authority to act as an agent of the FAA. But yet they do with these software restrictions. So one of two things needs to happen. A class action suit against DJI to compel them to remove these restrictions or have consumers made aware through aggressive social media that before you buy a DJI product you must understand that you can;t use it at will. DJI will dictate where you can use it. That will affect sales which gets their attention.
Why hasn't someone filed a suit yet? Simple. Money. But eventually an attorney will buy a DJI drone for himself or child, find out this nasty secret and the law suit will happen.  The sooner the better.

Bye the way, why doesn't DJI put Geo Fences on North Koreas missiles if they really want to "help".. LOL

seeker_ktf_ Posted at 2017-9-14 18:04
Circular NZF's are a problem.  There was a thread a while back but real odd shaped NZFs get turned into circles by DJI and t makes the DJI NZFs sometimes *much* larger than what was intended.

...and yet another excellent point and example...does anyone see the problems here...and as I've noted there is plenty of US airspace and others else where that do not conform to anything like circles.  Of course, the last thing we need is for DJI to start adding those in on top of what we already have.  
For the sake of safety I agree with the concept of all of this, just not with the execution and implementation...

hitman007 Posted at 2017-9-14 18:58
Bye the way, why doesn't DJI put Geo Fences on North Koreas missiles if they really want to "help".. LOL

An excellent idea, matter of fact superb!!!

Genghis9 Posted at 2017-9-14 19:24
...and yet another excellent point and example...does anyone see the problems here...and as I've noted there is plenty of US airspace and others else where that do not conform to anything like circles.  Of course, the last thing we need is for DJI to start adding those in on top of what we already have.  
For the sake of safety I agree with the concept of all of this, just not with the execution and implementation...

The aircraft is where the NFZ information is stored, and it has to do so for all counties of the world. The simplest mathematical way to define an area is by specify the central point and a radius. And the majority of restricted areas are circles.

Geebax Posted at 2017-9-14 16:52
I doubt any country has laws that protect the consumber from retrospective restrictions to operation. But in any event that picture is giving you the option of agreeing to the terms and continuing your flight. BTW, most civilised countries have consumer rights.

No Gebax, you still talk as if you have no consumer protection in Australia. I would like to see your face if you in your car should make an stop for every 100 meters and answer yes that you have the authority to drive along the road and you are well aware that you are fully responsible for driving at the place. It is not a question that you may be allowed to continue after you have responded to the trivial question. In any case, I got again again again destroyed the work I had planned to do that day and wasted 1 1/2 hour in the window I may use the airspace.   

Regards Leif.

hitman007 Posted at 2017-9-14 18:46
Genghis is correct on all points. But without making it complex I stand by my original simplistic statement. DJI is making themselves a  de facto FAA. Why and to what end? DJI is in the business of making and selling drones. Not in the business of policing its customers nor do they have appointed authority to act as an agent of the FAA. But yet they do with these software restrictions. So one of two things needs to happen. A class action suit against DJI to compel them to remove these restrictions or have consumers made aware through aggressive social media that before you buy a DJI product you must understand that you can;t use it at will. DJI will dictate where you can use it. That will affect sales which gets their attention.
Why hasn't someone filed a suit yet? Simple. Money. But eventually an attorney will buy a DJI drone for himself or child, find out this nasty secret and the law suit will happen.  The sooner the better.

' DJI is making themselves a  de facto FAA. Why and to what end? DJI is in the business of making and selling drones. Not in the business of policing its customers nor do they have appointed authority to act as an agent of the FAA.'

Far too simplistic. DJI are not a 'de factor FAA' by any means, that is the myopic view of an American. They define resticted areas in many countries of the world where the FAA has nothing to do with.

The history of the GEO system is cloudy, originally it was a system that three manufacturers, who sell into the American market, agreed to put in place to prevent idiots from flying into dangerous areas. But only DJI copped the flack over their implementation, because the others all wimped out with half-arsed versions or not doing it at all. in at least one case, the company went belly-up.

Anyone following this with any intelligence would ask why DJI and the others agreed to the GEO system in the first place, given that it would not be popular among their customers. The answer has to be because they were leant on by some authority to do so, and it would not take much to figure out who that was.

Landbo Posted at 2017-9-14 21:20
No Gebax, you still talk as if you have no consumer protection in Australia. I would like to see your face if you in your car should make an stop for every 100 meters and answer yes that you have the authority to drive along the road and you are well aware that you are fully responsible for driving at the place. It is not a question that you may be allowed to continue after you have responded to the trivial question. In any case, I got again again again destroyed the work I had planned to do that day and wasted 1 1/2 hour in the window I may use the airspace.   

Regards Leif.

'No Gebax, you still talk as if you have no consumer protection in Australia. '

Sorry, I am not going to waste my time here, just do a Google search with the terms 'customer protection' and 'australia'.

Geebax Posted at 2017-9-14 21:20
The aircraft is where the NFZ information is stored, and it has to do so for all counties of the world. The simplest mathematical way to define an area is by specify the central point and a radius. And the majority of restricted areas are circles.

Uh sorry there bud, but I disagree, I don't know about else where but here in the states far more NFZs are not circles, they are almost anything but that.  Now most airfields are based on circles, but your larger/busier ports have an added projection on their arrival and departure corridors.  After airfields the only other airspace defined primarily by a circle is a ROZ, and many of them are temporary i.e. they come and go.  However, there are permanent ones and I imagine you would find them around nuke power plants and the like.  Most all the others are polygons of some shape, form, and size.

Genghis9 Posted at 2017-9-14 19:24
...and yet another excellent point and example...does anyone see the problems here...and as I've noted there is plenty of US airspace and others else where that do not conform to anything like circles.  Of course, the last thing we need is for DJI to start adding those in on top of what we already have.  
For the sake of safety I agree with the concept of all of this, just not with the execution and implementation...

I do. Look at the Danish military "playgrounds": http://www.flv.dk/milais/navwarframe.html  and press the square button just below this day's NOTAM. The areas of this day are filled with red.  

Regards Leif.

Geebax Posted at 2017-9-14 21:36
'No Gebax, you still talk as if you have no consumer protection in Australia. '

Sorry, I am not going to waste my time here, just do a Google search with the terms 'customer protection' and 'australia'.

Me too. Search on Google with the word "forbrugerbeskyttelse" on Danish pages instead.  

Landbo Posted at 2017-9-14 22:07
Me too. Search on Google with the word "forbrugerbeskyttelse" on Danish pages instead.

Amazing. Given that it is extremely unlikely I would understand Danish, why in hell would I do that.

Geebax Posted at 2017-9-14 22:14
Amazing. Given that it is extremely unlikely I would understand Danish, why in hell would I do that.

Google Translate.   

Landbo Posted at 2017-9-14 21:59
I do. Look at the Danish military "playgrounds": http://www.flv.dk/milais/navwarframe.html  and press the square button just below this day's NOTAM. The areas of this day are filled with red.  

Regards Leif.

Correct, and the same for here as well and I'm sure you also have things like MTRs, R areas, IFR routes, VR routes, etc. etc. many of those are surface to X altitude while others are in the flight ops zone of these drones.  However, remaining below 400' AGL will deconflict with many too.
I don't know where any of this goes or ends up, but I would hope it does not get added to what we already have to deal with, that is problematic enough.

Genghis9 Posted at 2017-9-14 21:40
Uh sorry there bud, but I disagree, I don't know about else where but here in the states far more NFZs are not circles, they are almost anything but that.  Now most airfields are based on circles, but your larger/busier ports have an added projection on their arrival and departure corridors.  After airfields the only other airspace defined primarily by a circle is a ROZ, and many of them are temporary i.e. they come and go.  However, there are permanent ones and I imagine you would find them around nuke power plants and the like.  Most all the others are polygons of some shape, form, and size.

Actually, most of ours are circles or quadrants of circles.

Geebax Posted at 2017-9-14 22:45
Actually, most of ours are circles or quadrants of circles.

Well I'm gonna have to accept your word there, as I'm sure you are far more the expert on Ausie airspace than I.  I've flown a few LL routes through there and hit a northern bombing range and I can't say I remember what those borders were.  I do know your off shore R areas (aka MOAs) are not circles.  We conducted several FIEs (fighter intercept exercises) out there to test your ADIZ.

Genghis9 Posted at 2017-9-14 22:26
Correct, and the same for here as well and I'm sure you also have things like MTRs, R areas, IFR routes, VR routes, etc. etc. many of those are surface to X altitude while others are in the flight ops zone of these drones.  However, remaining below 400' AGL will deconflict with many too.
I don't know where any of this goes or ends up, but I would hope it does not get added to what we already have to deal with, that is problematic enough.

All the solid military sites in Denmark, which is controlled by NOTAM has DJI put on their GEO / NFZ: http://www.dji.com/flysafe/geo-map  Notice that there is a large area in the NW part of Denmark. It has DJI removed from the card because I have protested strongly. This problem is easily solved by DJI to removes the area from their card and still leaves the area in the software. That's obviously the way DJI cope with their problems !!!

While I remember, here is a link to the official Danish map for drone flight: http://zzz42drone.naviair.dk/  However, the page is down right now.

Regards Leif.

Russia to the rescue!  I learned today about a Russian company that makes software that defeats all the DJI GO app restrictions. You can fly anywhere at any altitude and maximum speed.  Why does Russia have all the good hackers?

Landbo Posted at 2017-9-14 23:11
All the solid military sites in Denmark, which is controlled by NOTAM has DJI put on their GEO / NFZ: http://www.dji.com/flysafe/geo-map  Notice that there is a large area in the NW part of Denmark. It has DJI removed from the card because I have protested strongly. This problem is easily solved by DJI to removes the area from their card and still leaves the area in the software. That's obviously the way DJI cope with their problems !!!

While I remember, here is a link to the official Danish map for drone flight: http://zzz42drone.naviair.dk/  However, the page is down right now.

Yes, I see what you mean about that...
...but you did say if you protest you can get their attention that is encouraging at least.
Agreed, leave all this info in there and inform all operators about these warning and danger areas.  However, permit the UAV owner to opt in or out of the control feature, that aspect should be purely optional IMHO not dictated.