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!
Joined: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 241 Location: Dartford, Kent, UK
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:06 pm Post subject: Mobile camera speed limit error.
sorry for posting this but I have submitted this twice on submission's page and this cam still has the wrong speed..
Speed cam MOBILE:7383@70, Heading:330, Single Direction A229 blue bell hill. Heading to-wards Chatham Rochester..
Map location: Centre Latitude: 51.331216638251966 Longitude: 0.5032038688659668
Incorrect speed in the data base its 50 mph not 70 mph ..
Zoom in to the map at this point
Centre Latitude: 51.33034684270102 Longitude: 0.5039045959711075
You will see 50 mph on the road… i have taken a photo also if further proof require.. keep up the good work guys... _________________ Alan --- aka Wiz.
Iphone 4S 16gb, ios 5 windows 7, CamerAlert, CoPilot & TomTom
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 1:36 am Post subject:
It should be changed soon as I submitted the change recently. I also recommended it be made 'both directions' as the van could cover either side of the A229 dual carriagway from Common Road.
Edit. Just checked and the change has been made. Have you downloaded the latest database? _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Joined: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 241 Location: Dartford, Kent, UK
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:27 pm Post subject:
Hello Lost_property.
Lost_Property wrote:
It should be changed soon as I submitted the change recently. I also recommended it be made 'both directions' as the van could cover either side of the A229 dual carriageway from Common Road.
Edit. Just checked and the change has been made. Have you downloaded the latest database?
Got the latest Database Version 6.092 12 Sep 08
and its still 70 just checked the goggle map and it still says 70 mph.
Note: The down side of the duel carriageway is 70 mph, but the up side is 50 mph so a bit difficult to set as both directions... i would of thought _________________ Alan --- aka Wiz.
Iphone 4S 16gb, ios 5 windows 7, CamerAlert, CoPilot & TomTom
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 1:55 pm Post subject:
Lost_Property wrote:
Edit. Just checked and the change has been made. Have you downloaded the latest database?
I've just looked, and it's still showing as 70 (as are MOBILE:12885 on the other carriageway and 12351@70 on the southbound, just a few hundred feet further south.
I can see the painted "500" on the road, but who knows how old the map is?
Also, the notes say "Database Notes: A229; on bridge; moved to road; speed changed to 70 (Lost_Property)" so did you put it up to 70 some time ago?
Joined: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 241 Location: Dartford, Kent, UK
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject:
Hello Andy
Andy_P wrote:
Lost_Property wrote:
Edit. Just checked and the change has been made. Have you downloaded the latest database?
I've just looked, and it's still showing as 70 (as are MOBILE:12885 on the other carriageway and 12351@70 on the southbound, just a few hundred feet further south.
I can see the painted "500" on the road, but who knows how old the map is?
Also, the notes say "Database Notes: A229; on bridge; moved to road; speed changed to 70 (Lost_Property)" so did you put it up to 70 some time ago?
I drive this route every day and reported a change a long time ago and it was change to 50 mph, but in a resent update it was changed to 70 mph on the up side of the road (to-wards Chatham) the red section painted on the road is definitely there plus two very large 50 mph signs. The down side of the road is 70 mph.. _________________ Alan --- aka Wiz.
Iphone 4S 16gb, ios 5 windows 7, CamerAlert, CoPilot & TomTom
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:07 am Post subject:
I read a while back that when cameras are placed on bridges, readings could not be taken within, I believe, 200 yards, because of inaccuracies caused by the downward angle used on the camera. (Do you think I can find it again by Googling? No.).
The 50mph speed restriction starts approx 110 yards before the bridge, i.e within the 200 yards, it appeared to me it would be there for the 70mph limit prior to the 50 signs.
If my memory re 200 yards is incorrect, or I misunderstood what I read, then a van parked on Common Road could be used to catch people exceeding both the 70 and 50 limits.
People travelling at 70 towards the 50 could have their device set to warn at shorter distance than for 70, in which case they would slow down for the 50 but may have already been caught exceeding the 70.
Then of course, if people get a 70 warning they could be caught exceeding the 50.
Maybe the answer is to change the camera back to 50 but add a 'dummy' camera a quarter mile further back down Bluebelll Hill to cover the 70 limit. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Joined: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 241 Location: Dartford, Kent, UK
Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:17 am Post subject:
Just a though.
as the camera has been moved down the road from the bridge you will already get an early warning just move it an extra 25 yards down the road maybe, this will increase the warning but set at the right speed 50 mph
keep up the good work guys _________________ Alan --- aka Wiz.
Iphone 4S 16gb, ios 5 windows 7, CamerAlert, CoPilot & TomTom
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:02 am Post subject:
Lost_Property wrote:
I read a while back that when cameras are placed on bridges, readings could not be taken within, I believe, 200 yards, because of inaccuracies caused by the downward angle used on the camera. (Do you think I can find it again by Googling? No.).
Are you thinking of THIS? wherein you will find this.....
Quote:
When operating handheld devices from an over-bridge the operator must stand where possible over the centre of the carriageway being checked. In respect of minimum range, the operator must carry out a height check from the level of operation to the road surface directly below then multiply this by a factor of ten. This figure becomes the minimum distance for operation.
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:18 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Are you thinking of THIS? wherein you will find this.....
Yes Dennis, you never cease to amaze me. The bridge in question could come within this guideline.
Quote:
as the camera has been moved down the road from the bridge you will already get an early warning just move it an extra 25 yards down the road maybe, this will increase the warning but set at the right speed 50 mph
The trouble with that Wiz is you could still get caught coming up the hill over 70, mobiles can get you up to about 1000 yards. That's why I thought a 'dummy' at about a quarter mile would be a good idea _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Joined: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 241 Location: Dartford, Kent, UK
Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject:
Hello Lost_Property
Quote:
The trouble with that Wiz is you could still get caught coming up the hill over 70, mobiles can get you up to about 1000 yards. That's why I thought a 'dummy' at about a quarter mile would be a good idea
Is there not a verifiers policy code of practise in this situation or do all you verifiers do what you think best in these situations, it must of come up before.
I'm for it changing back to 50 mph i get the warning well in advance of the 50 mph road markings.. _________________ Alan --- aka Wiz.
Iphone 4S 16gb, ios 5 windows 7, CamerAlert, CoPilot & TomTom
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Is there not a verifiers policy code of practise in this situation or do all you verifiers do what you think best in these situations, it must of come up before
In general it's all straightforward but this one is a bit of a poser. I agree it should be changed back to 50 but I'm still worried about no warning for the 70 section, if that's what they are checking on the day. You could be driving up Bluebell Hill at say 80, slow to 50 when you get the warning but still find you've been 'nabbed' in the 70.
There's only one other problem I've come across, along the road from me. One site has been used for years but over the past months they have sat in a new position 300 yards further along the road, they have however also used the original one. People not knowing the area could quite easily think one or other are wrong.
I think more mobile sites are accepted than rejected, especially if the person submitting has described the site well e.g parked in lay-by opposite post office approx 100 yards into 30mph limit. A verifier would go along and agree it's feasible, even if they see no van there, MaFt would then make the final decision on info received.
People sometimes make a mistake and report e.g. ANPR or CCTV cameras, the verifier would report it as such and once again MaFt would make the final decision. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Joined: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 241 Location: Dartford, Kent, UK
Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:48 pm Post subject:
Hello Lost_Property
we must trust in your judgement, yours and all the verifiers efforts are appreciated....................... _________________ Alan --- aka Wiz.
Iphone 4S 16gb, ios 5 windows 7, CamerAlert, CoPilot & TomTom
Joined: Jul 07, 2006 Posts: 1649 Location: Newcastle, England, UK
Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:04 pm Post subject:
Lost_Property wrote:
I think more mobile sites are accepted than rejected, especially if the person submitting has described the site well.
It is for this reason that once a new mobile location is verified as feasible, a further 2 independent reported sightings are needed for the site to become live on the database. _________________ Tomtom GO 1005 LIVE
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:25 am Post subject:
Lost_Property wrote:
Yes Dennis, you never cease to amaze me.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't deserve it. The very first ever time I've beaten you to quote a link is down to a very simple fact - somebody gave us a link to the ACPO mobile camera guidelines and I was curious enough to bookmark it to read at my leisure. I remembered that stuff about angles or something was in there, so I only had to look at my bookmark - because it survived my most recent purge of my bookmarks. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:50 am Post subject:
Quote:
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't deserve it.
You're too modest.
Getting back to this darn bridge camera, I've checked on Google Earth and find the distance from the 50mph marking on the road to the bridge is 360 feet, divide this by the multiple of 10 = 36 feet. I'll have to wander over there and with my trusty digital measure see if I can get a reading from the bridge to the road. (Knowing my luck a bus will pass as I do it and the reading will be wrong by 14' 10").
My mate's a bus driver and drives the '100 route' several times per week, sometimes 3 or 4 times the same day, I've asked him to keep his eyes open for any sign of a camera, either side. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
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
