That's fantastic! We want to stay with Fulcrum but this has been a major limitation for our field usage. I probably don't have to say it, but please consider multipolygon, etc. geometries.

In evaluating software/apps that accommodate creating ecological records effectively, most frustratingly the first article I identified was that without the ability to generate polygons and lines, Fulcrum instantly forfeited any further consideration. That it is not included, a huge oversight whether your discussing market share or the end user. That this feature request is so highly placed, case in point. In continuing to evaluate apps within this category, and in doing trials in the field, I have though recognised some additional considerations. Only a couple of similar providers support poly/lines, but yes do so as if it is a given. Ry has not stated why, but if part of his rational behind leaving poly/line work to the desktop is accuracy, and you are talking areas less than 200 square m/yards, then point taken. With a current accuracy of around 5m for most hand held devices, in tests, I regularly dropped pins/points that created a meaningless shape for small areas, Fulcrum, far from the worst. At the very least you would need the location recalculated every second or so, position averaging and an accuracy setting included - as several other apps do include. From a practical aspect, yesterday I attempted to record 40 different sites with up to 200 plants at several of those locations. Obviously I cannot create 200 records per/location, however it is critical that I do record the boundaries of the plant distribution at each site. Which I could do by using a repeatable field to drop perimeter pins, other than the limitation of not being able to map view parent and child pins at the same time, invalidates that idea. That Fulcrum suggests they are reviewing "GPS effort tracklines", but not this requests, is confusing to me, the functionality, surely the same?? In consideration, I ponder if some of the current shortfall is the residing roadblock between Parent/child records as far as viewing, calculations and linking, supporting pins with a different symbol, removing one layer of save in repeatables so that you can create a series of child records rather than one at a time, and saving filtered views/searches on the mobile, where this even more valid than in the office. Annotating an image does have some potential as a work around, other than there is a suggestion of only 100 records for a repeatable, particularly with images included, and you would need directional orientation of the image. Under review, what may work as an alternative for myself and others, would be to be able to Annotate immediately on the base map or layer, this would be very quick, remove the need for a repeatable, and be viewable for each record. Sorry for the wordiness.

Completely agree with everyone here - being able to create tracks (lines) or polygons would GREATLY improve the utility of fulcrum for our network of users. PLEASE Fulcrum!

This is a feature that most groups in the Kimberley Ranger Network would use on a daily basis. Would love to see this included

having worked in the gis space for over 20 years now - i can confidently tell you that my answer to this question/complaint from folks within my business is; field users should not be drawing in polygon/line detail work and that it should be left up to a desktop user with a mouse/keyboard. just my 0.02$

1. Shapes / Symbols / Lines: Probably the biggest obstacle to introducing Fulcrum to other work types is that it cannot capture lines, create shapes, or add custom symbols to the map. If our platform was capable of this, it would make it useful to a wider variety of work types.