"Had a similar situation—report flagged 'major shingle deterioration,' climbed up ready to schedule a full replacement, only to find some moss patches and dirt buildup."
Had something similar happen last spring. Drone flagged "severe storm damage," but when I climbed up, it was mostly loose debris and a couple shingles slightly lifted by wind. Tech's handy for spotting potential issues quickly, but you're right—nothing beats a hands-on check. Saved me from prematurely filing an insurance claim... would've been awkward explaining that one later.
would've been awkward explaining that one later.
I've seen similar scenarios with drone inspections. They're definitely useful for initial assessments, especially after storms or in hard-to-reach areas, but they often exaggerate minor issues due to angle, shadows, or debris. Last month a drone flagged "significant granule loss," and when I checked manually, it was mostly pollen buildup and some discoloration from algae. Tech's great as a starting point, but nothing beats getting up close and personal to confirm the actual condition before making big decisions.
I've had mixed experiences with drones too. They do sometimes exaggerate minor stuff, but honestly, I've also caught things with drone images that I completely missed during my first manual inspection. One time, I walked a roof after a storm and it seemed fine—no obvious damage. But later, looking at drone shots from directly above, I spotted a subtle lifting of shingles in an area I'd overlooked. Turned out to be early wind damage that would've worsened over time.
I agree that nothing beats getting up there yourself, but drones can highlight issues you might not see from eye-level or certain angles. It's less about tech replacing manual inspections and more about giving us another perspective. Like everything else, it's just another tool in the toolbox—useful if you understand its limitations and strengths.
I get your point about drones offering another angle, but honestly, I've found that relying too heavily on drone images can sometimes lead to misinterpretation. For instance, shadows or reflections can make minor issues look more severe than they actually are. I've had a few cases where drone photos suggested significant lifting or warping, but when I physically inspected the area, it turned out to be nothing concerning—just lighting playing tricks. They're definitely helpful, but you've got to be cautious about trusting drone imagery alone without verifying manually.
Totally agree with the drone thing—had a similar experience myself. Got a bunch of drone pics once that made my roof look like it was auditioning for a disaster movie. I panicked, climbed up there (carefully, obviously), and...nothing. Just some weird shadows from the chimney and tree branches. Ever notice how drones can make your gutters look like they're about to fall off too? Mine looked like they were hanging on by a thread until I checked in person and realized they'd probably survive the apocalypse.
Don't get me wrong, drones are awesome for spotting stuff you'd otherwise miss, but do you really wanna shell out hundreds or thousands on repairs based on what could essentially be fancy optical illusions? I'm all for tech helping out, but gotta keep it grounded—literally!
