The problem is the world isn't flat & this limitation needs to be 400' AGL. Also, and I'm not a licensed pilot so I don't know the details of their rules, but I suspect manned aircraft limits (ie stay above 500') apply to the highest structure in the vicinity. Otherwise flying 500' AGL over New York City would prove rather disastrous.
Here is KLAS McCarran. Easily solved by a hard 400 foot limit. If DJI truly wanted to chance the picture as far as conflicts with aircraft while upsetting their loyal customer base to far lesser degree, they would impose a 120 hard max altitude. No more 500. Mind you there are those who come in here and *****. But believe me it is a lot less than the bitching and leaving the hobby entirely that will happen if the beta limits go on as is. There is absolutely no reason civil aviation should be cruising around under 150 agl. And no reason we should be higher than 120. While I admit to having done far higher to go up the side of a mountain but still being only 20 meters above the rocks and trees. If DJI made a hard 120 limit I'd say oh well, hike up the mountain on foot and take off higher up. I wouldn't even say one word in complaint here. But to create this bs here while still leaving folks to **** around at 500 meters over flat ground and maybe a metropolitan center solves what safety concern? Hard 120 and smaller yellows would leave far more people happier and safer to boot. Want to keep the yellows as large as they are, then do an inverse cone where the bird would automatically be blocked at higher altitudes the nearer to the epicenter of the yellows. Now as far as the French and Croatian coast, this is a nightmare. I'd get a vortex 250 racing drone and be done with it if I lived there. Anyway, here is Las Vegas. See how a hard 120 with the old phantom 2 no fly zone would take care of most issues there. Issues that aren't completely solved with a three day clearance to 500 meters.
View attachment 40165