Speed Camera Database to Turn Professional

beldaal · Occasional Visitor Joined: Dec 04, 2005 Posts: 2

Well - a mixed bag of responses here. My view - FWIW - is that you would be perfectly within your rights to say "OK - that's it. Let someone else do it" - and where would we be then?

Somehow we've got to cut through all the intellectual rights, copyright, and other crap, and let you see something for the enormous effort you have, and continue to put into it all. I really don't see if someone choses to volunteer the information that there's a camera at X/Y, that this information somehow becomes HIS possession. What if 2 people volunteer it? Do they BOTH own it 100%?

As I see it, the extremely nominal charge covers ADMINISTRATION and time spent, not ownership or liability.

I would certainly pay - and probably be willing to pay more that the £2. Why should we benefit so massively from the efforts of some who get nothing (apart from a probably rapidly-shrinking sense of self-satisfaction)?

Voluntary contributions to the site are fine and laudable - except that for everyone who contributes, there are probably 50 or more who don't.

Let's just settle down and think about this rationally and sensible.

And then agree to pay the extremely nominal contribution.

Buit then - I may be wrong (often am).

Nigel

JonnyW · Occasional Visitor Joined: Sep 16, 2005 Posts: 39

I think it is safe to say - judging by the responses from people on these posts - there is a lot of upset users who are not going to return to this website when charging comes into force.

This will of course impact on the revenue the site generates from advertisements as visitors will not be using the links

It looks like there will be more damage than good done to PGPSW's reputation and database. I am a little concerned about the amount of talk of submitting wrong information to the chargeable "service" and the talk of other people no longer contributing to the database. This will in itself render the databases useless and laughable as (1) a chargeable service and (2) as the so called "reliable database.

PGPSW, in my opinnion are silly to start charging for this database but it appears they have already made up their mainds and are going to do it anyway. BECAUSE OF THIS...

I THINK WE CAN SAY GOODBYE TO THIS ONCE EXCELLENT SERVICE

TheBoyGroucho · Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:15 pm Post subject:

Blue_Bear · Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:16 pm Post subject:

Does that mean there will be new features, for example knowing what side of the road the GATSO is on, as with TTG it reports the Camera if it's on the other side of the road, which is something my Road Angel is clever enough not to do.

As for charging catch 22 really, TomTom charge for their service so some competition there, free is great but where would Bill Gaqtes be now if he'd gone down the same route, and if you do charge you are then providing a chargeable service so quality of product becomes critical, where as when it's free it's like it or lump it. Plus especially as it could cost people 3 Points & Fines "if" your data provided by other people is inaccurate you'd need to make sure the Legal people tie down your T's & C's very tight.

Might of been stated before, but not got time to read 13 pages.

All The Best
Steve

ringostarr · Occasional Visitor Joined: Dec 19, 2005 Posts: 19

soweezy · Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:23 pm Post subject:

shrubies · Occasional Visitor Joined: Apr 24, 2005 Posts: 34

one other thing is, it is £2 now what stop them in six month uping that to £3 OR £10 a month, as it has now gone from free to £2. Also are they going to make there account avaible so we can have a look, like most public conpanys.

Horndean · Occasional Visitor Joined: Jul 13, 2005 Posts: 29

I was one of the guys that went to the Basingstoke Show, great show it was too. I can remember at reception signing in with my email address, did I really say I would be happy to pay for the database service!

Lets be honest It is a service, ok a few of you that have sent data in have contributed to its formation and you should be looked after but the rest of us get a good deal for nothing. I could and would treat this service for my car and my licence the same way as I do my computer, I have the paid version of AVG anti-virus @ £21.30 per annum and Spy Sweeper @ $19.95 per annum. Both of these are totally automated and I do nothing, it's all updated in the background saves a lot of hassle and grief.

If the owners of the site decided to charge I would expect a more professional setup than we have at the moment, an all belts & braces brand new program where my input was minimal.

As to charges, sell the program, annual fee for upgrades, just make it reasonable. £2 download will not work, 3 or 4% of that will go in the visa fees plus all the trouble of setting it up and I don't think punters would use it as often as you would hope.

I live in Hampshire which is a "quiet" little County compared to others regarding cameras, but a lot are not accurrately shown, I presume the owners would use a new army of agency workers to correct this small fault in a new program. A lot of good could come out of this for every one if it was setup right.

Regards

Bob

Bigstoo · Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:37 pm Post subject:

hmm dont think the bill gates analogy quite works here. when he bought dos, he paid for it (albeit a pidly $50,000 looking back) he didnt ask for all the programmers to send him all their individual programs free of charge, and then amalgamate those programs under the name ms-dos, and sell it. he bought a product, tarted it up, and sold it under licence. thats how commerce works. this aint the same.

if PGPSW think they 'own' the database, then they have a problem. If nobody updates it, and come on, there is no way in hell that 1 person is going to be able to physically check the validity of all the safety cams in the uk every year, never mind every month, so the data will become more and more inaccurate. So there would be no point even having a database installed KNOWING they are so inaccurate.

No sign of a poll from PGPSW yet?? nope.

Noony · Lifetime Member Joined: Oct 13, 2003 Posts: 135

My concern is that users stop providing their updates of camera positions. The information currently freely provided by users is unbeatable.

I woud not use Paypal as a payment method.

The current download is big, users download every format everytime, surely it would be better to have smaller download options.

Finally I know that £2 per month is not much, but I do think someone else will try to setup another free service...

Certainly a hot topic!

Bigstoo · Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:43 pm Post subject:

cheers ringostarr, looks like pgpsw dont want to do one.

BERT_UK · Occasional Visitor Joined: Sep 15, 2005 Posts: 45

Bigstoo · Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:46 pm Post subject:

how would employing an army of agency workers to check the validity of cameras save costs????

bowler · Occasional Visitor Joined: Jul 10, 2004 Posts: 17

I have just given up the subscription for Road Angel in favor of using the PGPSW database, which I have found to be just as good, both have cameras that have been removed or resited so even the commercial ones are not 100% accurate.

However the cost at £2 per month compares very favorably to RA's costs. I would pay £2 per month but would favor a yearly option just as RA Origin Blue etc.

I have used Paypal for years and found it to be secure, more secure than giving a CC no directly to a retailer you do not know.

I think its a shame that it has come to this but site/bandwidth costs will be high with this site becoming more popular by the day and costs dont go down.

There has been much animosity in this thread which I doubt the authors ever intended.

tomtomgo · Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:13 pm Post subject:

A simple solution to all this is say stuff em and start our own database.
I am sure we have enough technically competent people but do we have people who are committed enough.
I would be for a truck load of readies!!.

	PocketGPS
	Web