I’ve been running into a recurring issue in Designer Desktop that I think might be worth opening up for discussion. Whenever location data is entered manually—whether it’s lat/long, city names, or addresses—there always seems to be a noticeable gap between what users think they’re inputting and what shows up spatially after processing. I’ve cleaned up these kinds of entries using formula tools, spatial matching, even adjusting coordinate projections, but I still keep seeing outputs that are slightly off from what’s expected. It doesn’t feel like a data quality problem so much as a gap in how users understand or interact with spatial input tools.
What I’m wondering is: can we build workflows in Designer Desktop that guide users better during the location input phase itself? Instead of just correcting their data later, what if there was a way to give them immediate feedback or even some kind of “soft” validation while they’re entering info—like a smart system that gently lets them know if their point is too far off a known area or landmark? I’ve been toying with the idea of creating something like a spatial “confidence zone.” The idea would be to define a set of trusted reference locations, then check how far a user’s input falls from these references. If it’s outside a certain range, the tool could return a message or flag before the rest of the workflow runs.
This idea came to me after spending time with an online compass I recently used to find the Qibla direction. What caught my attention wasn’t just the accuracy but the way it helped me trust the location without making me think too hard about it. It’s a form of online Wayfinder—a simple browser-based tool that uses geolocation and sensors to show you the right direction in real-time. I was positively inspired by how intuitive it was, and it made me wonder if we can recreate a similar type of interaction in Alteryx—maybe not for direction-finding, but for improving how we handle spatial inputs from people who may not always know their exact coordinates.
One specific thing I tried was setting up a spatial match between user inputs and a reliable file of known city centers or neighborhood coordinates. I thought about using a batch macro that returns a warning if a user’s lat/long is outside, say, a 10 km buffer around a trusted point. That could then trigger a message or visual flag that encourages them to double-check their entry. But I’m not sure what the best balance is between being helpful and being too intrusive, especially when there are thousands of records involved.
Another idea I’m exploring is whether a fuzzy match on place names could help clarify what users really meant when entering text fields for locations. If someone types “Paris” but means Paris, Texas instead of Paris, France, could we have a quick lookup table that checks the most likely match and prompts the user to confirm before we run the spatial operations? And if so, what’s the cleanest way to integrate that kind of check within an Alteryx workflow without breaking the flow?
Is anyone here doing something like this already? I’d love to know how others are approaching location validation not just on the backend but interactively, in a way that helps reduce these small mismatches in real-time. What tools, tricks, or even design concepts are you using to make spatial entry smarter without overwhelming users?
