What counts as the position of a mobile site?

[Mac-The-Knife]

I can only see the database working if the "position" of a mobile site is given as the position of the recording device, NOT the aim point (which could be 1000m away!).
Time and time again I see warnings on the database marking an aim point.
I have even submitted to correct this on a site, whose intricate details I know too well (if you follow my drift). Yet now I see the correct position has been deleted (a lay-by) and replaced with one 800m or so down the road at the target/aim point.
Is this correct? Have I misunderstood the meaning of a mobile "site"?

[DennisN]

I'm a Verifier. I check for actual location of the camera - van, bike, you name it.

To this end, with our cameras, it is possible to set your own warning distance and you can set that at 1000yds or 100yds, whichever you trust to give best warning.

I have not previously heard a suggestion of setting our camera locations at the point it's aiming at.

Can you give us details of this one you know well - lat/long of layby, camera number for the other one?
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!

[Mac-The-Knife]

Dennis,

Thanks for your reply and moreover thanks for all the work to verify reports. I can't begin to imagine the task you have.

I concur with everything you say.

The best example (because of my undesired intricate knowledge...) is Swindon and Wilts mobile site AH6.
This is a stretch of the A36 north west of Salisbury.
The Constabulary witness statement describes the location as
"A36 Hanging Langford, in nearside lay-by near to metre post 48/5 approx 470m east of Steeple Langford junction...Site 1043".
In my case the aim point was LAT 51.14056622 LON -1.9605787 (this is the point of the western junction of the Steeple Langford road with the A36) and the laser was 521.8m east in the aforementioned lay-by on the northern side of the A36.
On the current database, mobile 8129@60 is now shown as the valid one and is very close to the aim point.
On the current database, mobile 8128@60, now shown crossed-out, is pretty much the lay-by position.

I realise the site may have moved but, knowing the lay of the land, I really doubt it.

[DennisN]

Ho, Ho. A36 is one of my happy hunting grounds (whitevanman by trade, verifier is "as I go past anywhere that needs checking") and I travel along it quite often.

Looking at that area, Mobile:8129@60 and Mobile:8128@60 are quite old ones - from the ID number and the fact that neither of them give a Heading number. If you reconsider 8129, there IS a layby there - on the south side, so it would be quite feasible as a mobile location (I'm not that good - I'm looking on the web at this point). But you are quite right that the site for (ex)Mobile:8128@60 is a useful layby too.
It is perhaps worth mentioning that sometimes police reports are not quite accurate (my parking fine 45 years ago described my Jowett van as a Ford!), so it may be that the reporting officer was using his database rather than the actual place he was at.

Whatever. It looks to me like a good case for you to make a submission of the site of 8128, commenting that either it should never have been deleted or should be reinstated on the grounds of your "personal" knowledge, giving your above quote from the statement as supporting comments.

I might put a plug in here for the "Comments" box on the cameras submission page. We get comments like "I got nicked here" which don't give much help. The one you've quoted is on the other hand very useful - if submitters describe the location, instead of simply swearing a terrible oath that it's true (when they could easily be giving us coordinates in the middle of a golf course because they got the finger in instead of out!), it would make this science a lot more exact. Mobile cameras are hardly ever there when we go to check a report, so the "good quality" comments are really valuable.

Note - it's down to you now - I have NOT been to this site to look at it from your post. I am NOT reporting it as verified, unless and until there is a new report and I go that way on my travels.
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!

[Mac-The-Knife]

Dennis,

OK.

I can only guess 8129@60 points up the A36 hill (eastwards).

I know 8128@60 points down the A36 hill to the junction and aims at oncoming vehicles that have just left the A36 dual carriageway and taken a very slight left-hand bend (just slight enough to keep the scamera van out of sight).

Thing is, about a month ago I reported this point and since then mobile 8128@60 (on the northern lay-by) has been crossed out!

Are you suggesting I just report it all over again (to get 8128@60 re-instated) ? I'll do that if necessary.

[MaFt]

Mac-The-Knife: have got your submissions and they will be proessed by the next update

MaFt

[Mac-The-Knife]

Thanks,

You're all doing an awesome job, I can't imagine it's easy reviewing all the submissions - especially mobile ones.

(and it can be a tadge tricky to submit sightings accurately and in a consistent format) !

I'm very grateful for all your hard work and I'm sure I speak for many, many others.

[neil01]

Without getting into the discussion about whether the position should be the camera position, or the position of the trap. One qualification re location of the camera being the camera position is that the actual position may give a false warning if it is nearer to another road. A good example would be from a bridge which is also a road, but there are others.

A more useful definition for the camera location would probably be the appropriate section of road nearest to the camera position - this would apply to fixed cameras too.

[DennisN]

[mikealder]

[BMW330]

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!