| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sofaspud
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 5
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:28 am Post subject: Request to reinstate cameras deleted from DB |
 |
|
Hi,
What is the requirement to reinstate deleted cameras?
I know of 3 camera locations that have been deleted from the DB, yet the cameras are still present on the road.
I'm using the latest DB (dated 8/10/07).
last night I noticed a Gatso, so recorded the location.
When using the map to verify it for submission it appeared as:
GATSO:2611@50, Heading:330, Single Direction
showing greyed with a red X indicates it was in the DB but has been removed.
I have submitted a CR for the above one, and I have previously submitted these two (in April 07) as they are also shown greyed on the map. Confirmation email received at the time, but still show as deleted.
SPECS:16308@20, Heading:0, Reversible
SPECS:16307@20, Heading:0, Single Direction
(this should also be reversible)
I've re-submitted these also.
I understand a new or deleted camera requires confirmation from other users, but these have previously been included therefore must have been verified before addition, so do they still require other users to confirm?. The gatso mentioned above is on the A406, so I would expect others to have reported this.
Spud |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Andy_P
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005
Posts: 19991
Location: West and Southwest London
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:01 pm Post subject: Re: Request to reinstate cameras deleted from DB |
|
|
| sofaspud wrote: |
SPECS:16308@20, Heading:0, Reversible
SPECS:16307@20, Heading:0, Single Direction
(this should also be reversible)
I've re-submitted these also. |
What do you mean by a "reversible SPECS"?
I've never seen one of those..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Andy
I wondered about reversible SPECS. But it seems possible that the cameras mentioned by sofaspud are a copy and paste from the our Google map database as the format is exactly the same.
I couldnt find them in the latest db, but that's what sofaspud is commenting on I guess. So possibly neither are in the db and the 'reversible' one is wrongly categorised.
I hope that MaFt chimes in to clarify. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15148
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Re: SPECS: the remove requests both stated:
"The person who submitted this SPECS location is mistaken. It is not a SPECS camera."
this was then confirmed by one of our verifiers.
RE: 2611
we've already been alerted a bout the regeneration of gatso 2611 just we've been waiting for confirmation/verification. yours will no doubt go towards this
MaFt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofaspud
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: Request to reinstate cameras deleted from DB |
|
|
Ok,
Not that I'm an anorak, but I happened to be passing with the camera... 
| Andy_P2002 wrote: |
What do you mean by a "reversible SPECS"?
I've never seen one of those..... |
I used the term only because that was the nearest description available in the submision form. I suppose bidirectional would be better. they are two headed on the same post facing both ways on the road.
| MaFt wrote: | Re: SPECS: the remove requests both stated:
"The person who submitted this SPECS location is mistaken. It is not a SPECS camera."
this was then confirmed by one of our verifiers.
|
Granted these are not painted the fashionable yellow, but they look like specs to me, and the local newspaper has run several articles since they were installed (by the local authority). The other I mentioned is identical to the one shown.
| MaFt wrote: |
RE: 2611
we've already been alerted a bout the regeneration of gatso 2611 just we've been waiting for confirmation/verification. yours will no doubt go towards this
MaFt |
Glad to be of some (small) help.
Spud
Edit once to sort the picture links out - Spud can you re-size the pictures as these are way too large for normal forum display - 640x480 is best - Mike Alder |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikealder
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jan 14, 2005
Posts: 19638
Location: Blackpool , Lancs
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| These are not Specs cameras, they might look slightly like them - Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darren
Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've edited the images, they're not life size anymore 
_________________
Darren Griffin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulB2005
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jan 04, 2006
Posts: 9323
Location: Durham, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Look like CCTV cameras to me. Any warnings signs on approach to the cameras mentioning SPECS or Average Speed Check? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofaspud
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mikealder wrote: | | These are not Specs cameras, they might look slightly like them - Mike |
What are they? I think they look more than 'slightly' like them.
The local authority has stated they were installed for average speed checks along a section of road that passes a school due to the high number of complaints they claim they received. The local paper also reported the Authority said that initally they would be used for monitoring only, but would not rule out their use in enforcement.
| Darren wrote: | | I've edited the images, they're not life size anymore |
My oversight, thanks 
| PaulB2005 wrote: | | Look like CCTV cameras to me. Any warnings signs on approach to the cameras mentioning SPECS or Average Speed Check? |
The usual camera sign (not detailing specs or av speed) on the approach from each side. And (if I still have them), I have some photos of the crew 'calibrating' them shortly after they were physically installed.
The CCTV cameras typically used around here differ, none of which use illuminators like those shown, and do not use two on the same pole(they all have motor mountings).
Can anyone point out the difference in the images of those I posted to the examples given on the submissions page? other than these are back to back(unusual I know) and the paint colour I can see no difference.
The other is located approx 400m along the road and is identical in appearance.
spud |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darren
Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whilst they may be capable of average speed measurement they are not SPECS cameras.
SPECS have to be mounted on blue or yellow poles, with yellow coloured camera heads and the SPECS logo in the crook of the camera gantry arm, see below:
.JPG)
At the moment SPECS cameras from Speedcheck are the only approved automatic digital speed enforcement using average speed measurement cameras in the UK.
_________________
Darren Griffin
Last edited by Darren on Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikealder
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jan 14, 2005
Posts: 19638
Location: Blackpool , Lancs
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofaspud wrote: | What are they? I think they look more than 'slightly' like them.
The local authority has stated they were installed for average speed checks along a section of road that passes a school due to the high number of complaints they claim they received. The local paper also reported the Authority said that initially they would be used for monitoring only, but would not rule out their use in enforcement. |
I would go with the local paper reporting they CANNOT be used for enforcement, they are indeed cameras with a night view capability provided by the Infra-red illumination devices either side of the camera, they resemble the general appearance of a Specs device but they are not Speed cameras (as yet) - it could be at some future point their use is added to the network but it would require type approval of the specific camera, where in the country are these contraptions located as they could be monitoring a traffic zone or even the London LEZ area soon to be enforced within the M25 "circle" (the red bus suggests London area) - Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofaspud
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mikealder wrote: | | These are not Specs cameras, they might look slightly like them - Mike |
Sorry if I drag this out, but these 2 cameras now appear in the latest DB as active specs(SPECS:69175@20 & SPECS:60589@20)
Could someone tell us whether they are an error in the DB or what has changed to make them active please? Their physical appearance has not changed, although they now have large padlocked cabinets serving them. 
thanks
Spud |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005
Posts: 19991
Location: West and Southwest London
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I've forgotten what they looked like.... and the images or links to them seem to have vanished? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darren
Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The loss of the images is my fault. I was hosting them some personal web-space. I recently moved to a new web-server and took the opportunity to dump a lot of old links.
I'll see if I have the images in a backup and restore them.
_________________
Darren Griffin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darren
Frequent Visitor
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40
Posts: 23848
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And thanks to the wonder that is Apple's Time Machine, they are back 
_________________
Darren Griffin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
![]() 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!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
