For public authorities
scopemy.city and the other ways of receiving reports
A municipality already receives reports: by telephone, by email, at the counter, sometimes through an app. This page compares four approaches, criterion by criterion, including where scopemy.city is not the best choice.
This comparison describes approaches, not products: every solution on the market has its own features. Check each point with the supplier you are considering.
Criterion by criterion
| Criterion | Municipality's form or contact | Dedicated app | Generic ticketing tool | scopemy.city |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| What the person has to do | Find the right page or the right number, then describe the place in words. | Install the app, often create an account, then report. | Write to an address or fill in a form linked to the tool. | Send a photo and their location by WhatsApp, with no app and no account; or use the web form. |
| Photo and exact location | Depends on the form; by telephone, neither. | Yes, this is the strong point of this approach. | An attachment is possible; location is usually not a planned field. | Yes: the photo and the location of the phone, with the address found automatically. |
| Follow-up for the person | Depends on the municipality: often an acknowledgement, rarely what happens next. | Notifications in the app, as long as it stays installed. | Replies by email as the ticket progresses. | A message at each change of status, through the channel used to report, and a tracking page. |
| Public visibility | None: each request stays between the person and the department. | Depends on the app: sometimes a map of the reports. | Usually none: the tool is designed for a private exchange. | Public map and tracking after moderation; the authority can keep a report internal. |
| Work of the departments | Re-entry and manual transfer to the right department. | Depends on the app: from a simple inbox to a complete tool. | Solid: queues, assignment, deadlines, reply templates. | Routing by category and by zone, assignment, deadlines, reply templates, exports. |
| Setting up | Already in place, at no extra cost. | A project in its own right: development or configuration, publication in the app stores, promotion to residents. | Configuration by the authority; adapting it to field reports remains to be done. | A few days: boundary, categories, team; no publication in an app store. |
| Data and dependencies | With the municipality and its usual providers. | With the publisher of the app; dependence on the app stores. | With the publisher of the tool, often outside Switzerland depending on the plan chosen. | Sub-processors are published; WhatsApp messages go through Meta, which we state clearly. Web reporting remains possible without WhatsApp. |
When each approach is the right choice
Municipality's form or contact
When reports are rare and the department that receives them is also the one that handles them.
Dedicated app
When the authority wants an app in its own name for many services, and has the means to promote and maintain it.
Generic ticketing tool
When the issue is first of all internal organisation and the tool is already used by the departments.
scopemy.city
When the priority is that residents report easily, with a photo and a location, and see what is done about it.
The limits of scopemy.city
- The WhatsApp channel depends on Meta: an authority that does not want it can switch it off and keep the web.
- scopemy.city does not replace an online counter: it handles only reports in public space.
- The service is recent: the Geneva pilot started in 2026 and volumes are still modest.
- It is not an emergency channel: emergencies are for the official numbers.
These approaches combine
scopemy.city adds to what exists: the telephone and the counter stay open, and reports can be passed on to a tool already in place by email, by export or through the API.