Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: Camera Submissions
I submitted three new camera sightings on 19th March (detailed below) and have not heard anything back. I notice that two of them are now verified on the database, but no sign of the mobile submission. Although I note that you can't reply to every submission, as a member, it is infuriating to have submitted sightings and not know whether they are valid, being validated or whether I was beaten to it by another subscriber. If we take the time to submit new sightings in order to help the wider community, I think it would be far more courteous to let us know the outcome of our submission, rather than just sending them into effectively a black hole. Would it be possible to get a reply on the three submissions please?
Addition of: Single Direction Monitron (ID#0), Heading: 360, Lat:52.262917643441, Lon:-1.8911719322205 (United Kingdom), Speed:40, New camera installed within the last couple of days.
Addition of: Single Direction Monitron (ID#0), Heading: 180, Lat:52.264546097127, Lon:-1.8914079666138 (United Kingdom), Speed:40, New camera installed within the last couple of days.
Joined: May 09, 2007 Posts: 454 Location: Worcestershire
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject:
I have no access to the backend stuff but looing at the submission map, the mobile in Binton is in the pMobile database now. Assuming it is reported again you may well be the first for this one but at present its in the 'limbo' state mobile submissions go into before being added to the main database.
The 2 Studley cameras were reported by the 'first' on the 19th I believe (from info supplied by MaFt in a members area post). Since the updated database has been released and all first submissions have been awarded the lifetime membership, I guess you were beaten to it this time.
Like you I would like more feedback but do understand that the sheer number of submissions would mean the team spends more time responding to submissions than updating the database. I would prefer the database to be updated ahead of any replies to submissons.
1- you get an email to confirm this with the details of your submission
2- If you were the first to report it when you look at the submissions map page you will see your submission on there it will only be visible to you
3-- your submission which is shown on the map will have a cross inside the box which means it is waiting to be verified
So what this means is !! if you submit a camera and it is not shown on the map with a cross in it you were not the first to report it.
These further submissions are very important as they confirm previously made submissions
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15366 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject:
every time i read these i tell myself i shouldn't reply.... but yet here we go again...
ok, monitron heading 360, id 50316, received 2008-03-19 19:55:25 matches heading / type for id 50306 (rec'd 2008-03-19 17:15:33) but 132m too far north
monitron heading 180, id 50317, received 2008-03-19 19:56:41 matches heading / type for id 50305 (rec'd 2008-03-19 17:12:17) but 128m too far north
mobile sighting id 50315 for pmobile 46149 - you are the only person to have reported this camera. for full verification we need further independent reports.
this just took me about 8 minutes - if i had to do this for every one of the (on average) 75-100 daily submissions there would never be a database release.
It'll take you less time than MaFt needs - ten hours a day to spend answering this type of question. Of course it's "unacceptable" for you to drop your cameras into a black hole (which is not what happens), but what would you prefer? A database or an answering service? I sometimes think we should set up a phone line with buttons to press - "If you are annoyed because you haven't received a free membership, press 1". Then you could be passed to a recorded message. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:43 am Post subject:
Mike, sorry, if there is a slightly "exasperated" tone to the replies above, but it does get asked a lot.
The important question to ask you is: did you not get the automated reply thanking you for your submission?
If you had, (or had seen it, if it's got lost in your junk mail filters) would that have been OK for you?
As MaFt says (considering he may get several dozen reports of a new camera IN THE FIRST DAY), it simply isn't possible to cross-reference every group of submissions for a particular camera and then tell every person involved who it was that beat them to it this time.
I'm sorry if I have upset anybody, that wasn't my intention. It is difficult sitting outside of the circle of those of you 'in the know' about how the system works. I followed the instructions given on the site, to use the forum for any questions, rather than emailing and I am grateful for all of you that have taken the time to reply.
My initial wording was ambiguous - yes, I did receive the automated responses to each of the three submissions, but this only confirms receipt. When I checked on the camera database before my posting yesterday, there was no symbol on the map for the Binton camera, but it is there now. MaFt's response indicates that my submissions were the first received, but I was too far out with the location. Please don't take this the wrong way, but unless I was carrying a GPS or had a surveyors tape measure with me, how was I supposed to get the location down to within a couple of metres?
Yes, it would be nice to get a free lifetime subscription, but that is not what motivated me to submit the cameras. I submitted a speed change modification to TRUVELO:956@60 last year and my mobile camera submission this year, neither of which qualify for any reward. I had already reported the Binton camera on 9th February, but it took a repeat submission and my posting to appear to get it into the database. (I stand to be corrected if that is incorrect). The text that I included within both submissions for the Binton mobile camera, should be sufficient to justify its' inclusion without further verification.
I accept that it is unreasonable to expect, given the quantity of communications you have to deal with. Maybe it would be worth including the Username & date/time of the submission against the camera details, then if there is any dispute, we users have the information to base queries on prior to contacting yourselves.
Now I have a better understanding of the way you work, I can appreciate why you can't respond to every submission. Sorry again to have caused offence to any of you.
I'm sorry if I have upset anybody, that wasn't my intention. It is difficult sitting outside of the circle of those of you 'in the know' about how the system works. I followed the instructions given on the site, to use the forum for any questions, rather than emailing and I am grateful for all of you that have taken the time to reply.
My initial wording was ambiguous - yes, I did receive the automated responses to each of the three submissions, but this only confirms receipt. When I checked on the camera database before my posting yesterday, there was no symbol on the map for the Binton camera, but it is there now. MaFt's response indicates that my submissions were the first received, but I was too far out with the location. Please don't take this the wrong way, but unless I was carrying a GPS or had a surveyors tape measure with me, how was I supposed to get the location down to within a couple of metres?
Yes, it would be nice to get a free lifetime subscription, but that is not what motivated me to submit the cameras. I submitted a speed change modification to TRUVELO:956@60 last year and my mobile camera submission this year, neither of which qualify for any reward. I had already reported the Binton camera on 9th February, but it took a repeat submission and my posting to appear to get it into the database. (I stand to be corrected if that is incorrect). The text that I included within both submissions for the Binton mobile camera, should be sufficient to justify its' inclusion without further verification.
I accept that it is unreasonable to expect, given the quantity of communications you have to deal with. Maybe it would be worth including the Username & date/time of the submission against the camera details, then if there is any dispute, we users have the information to base queries on prior to contacting yourselves.
Now I have a better understanding of the way you work, I can appreciate why you can't respond to every submission. Sorry again to have caused offence to any of you.
All the best,
Mike.
I myself do understand what you are saying especially in an area which is strange to you or there is no prominent landmarks .
I find the hybrid Google map makes it a lot easier to find the location more accurately
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14906 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 7:40 pm Post subject:
MikeyBow wrote:
The text that I included within both submissions for the Binton mobile camera, should be sufficient to justify its' inclusion without further verification.
Why? Inside information? Effectively, you said "I am trustworthy and I know there's a camera in Binton". We get submissions from camera installation teams which are not considered sufficient to justify their inclusion without further verification. They sometimes get the coordinates wrong! We have members who are police officers and their submissions are not sufficient for inclusion without further verification.
Your submission comments only say "in the village of Binton" and your coordinates for 50315 (52.18626, -1.79396) placed the camera site in the back garden of a house at the far end of Orchard Rise - well off Main Road. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Jan 04, 2007 Posts: 2789 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject:
DennisN wrote:
Your submission comments only say "in the village of Binton" and your coordinates for 50315 (52.18626, -1.79396) placed the camera site in the back garden of a house at the far end of Orchard Rise - well off Main Road.
Maybe somebody has a yellow speed camera as a garden ornament - like red phone boxes etc
On a more serious not, the PGPSW system is fair and transparent because the SAME rules are applied equally to EVERYBODY.
I'm a reliable, honest kind of bloke, but I wouldn't expect PGPSW to bend the rules for me and just stick a camera in the database because I reported it - I'd expect the submission to be scrutinised and verified, just like everybody else's.
At the end of the day, the verification is part of the process that makes this database what it is - the best _________________ Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:17 pm Post subject:
MikeyBow wrote:
MaFt's response indicates that my submissions were the first received, but I was too far out with the location. Please don't take this the wrong way, but unless I was carrying a GPS or had a surveyors tape measure with me, how was I supposed to get the location down to within a couple of metres?
Read it again. My reading of MaFt's post is that your submissions were over 2 hours after the first submissions for those fixed cameras. I think if you had been the first, just being a few yards out wouldn't have mattered - the verifiers would correct the position anyway.
MikeyBow wrote:
Yes, it would be nice to get a free lifetime subscription, but that is not what motivated me to submit the cameras.
Quote:
Maybe it would be worth including the Username & date/time of the submission against the camera details, then if there is any dispute, we users have the information to base queries on prior to contacting yourselves..
If the free lifetime subscription is not what motivated you, why are you worried about knowing who submitted a camera? Don't worry, if you're first you'll get the lifetime sub. Haven't all the threads Dennis gave you to read reassured you of that? Just keep submitting and it will happen.
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15366 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:19 am Post subject:
no offence taken MikeyBow!
also, as bmuskett points out, the dates / times in my initial response show you were 2 hours after the first submission
however, even if they had been first they were too far away from further submissions so there was no 'grouping' of submissions near yours to verify it.
the image below is a map of some of the submissions (there were about 5 more around the active camera (blue circle) but these were not 'added' as there were enough already)
there is a clear 'grouping' that shows the likely location of the camera and 50317 being where it was was evidence of a camera in the vicinity but could not be used as an actual location. seeing this map (along with the knowledge that there were a further 5 submissions near the active camera) where would you have placed the active camera had you been me?
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:39 pm Post subject:
A good example of how hard it is to get "spot-on" accurate submissions.
I'm sure it would really help MaFt if everyone could double check their intended location against surrounding streets etc. on the submission map, rather than just sending in a marked "favourite" or whatever.
Thanks again for all those that replied, even the one from GPS_fan!!
I now have a much better understanding of the work that goes into the submission and validation of a camera addition and will try to ensure that any further ones that I submit are more accurate and know that each one is being investigated.
Maybe it is time to close this post and move on, but thanks again (honestly ) for everybody's input. I'll leave you all to get on with some higher priority work, hey.
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
) for everybody's input. I'll leave you all to get on with some higher priority work, hey.
