| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Liam
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Apr 11, 2005
Posts: 8
Location: High Wycombe
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:32 pm Post subject: Un-verified camera locations. |
 |
|
Last month I submitted the first of the temporary cameras in the westbound contra-flow of the road works on the M4 Junction 14-15. As it was the first day of the road works I thought that I'd be the first to send it in. To my surprise no-one has verified it in the February database, or the 2 others on the eastbound carrigeway that I have now submitted.
I must admit to sometimes being slack; having driven down a motoway / well used road seen a camera and thought that someone has probably already recorded it only for it not to be in the next database.
Are there any plans to release a list of un-verified fixed camera locations? I travel around the south alot for work and wouldn't mind deviating occaisionally to verify a camera's location. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gee-Pee
Lifetime Member
Joined: Feb 10, 2005
Posts: 1951
Location: Mostly somewhere in Essex
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 10:48 am Post subject: Re: Un-verified camera locations. |
|
|
| Liam wrote: | Last month I submitted the first of the temporary cameras in the westbound contra-flow of the road works on the M4 Junction 14-15. As it was the first day of the road works I thought that I'd be the first to send it in. To my surprise no-one has verified it in the February database, or the 2 others on the eastbound carrigeway that I have now submitted.
I must admit to sometimes being slack; having driven down a motoway / well used road seen a camera and thought that someone has probably already recorded it only for it not to be in the next database.
Are there any plans to release a list of un-verified fixed camera locations? I travel around the south alot for work and wouldn't mind deviating occaisionally to verify a camera's location. |
On the very few times I have submitted a camera, I have received a quick response/acknowledgement. Perhaps, you should resubmit  Emails do go astray sometimes 
_________________
Gee-Pee
Lifetime member PGPSW - time rapidly decreasing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gee-Pee
Lifetime Member
Joined: Feb 10, 2005
Posts: 1951
Location: Mostly somewhere in Essex
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:24 pm Post subject: Camera Verification |
|
|
Yesterday, I submitted a new Mobile camera location in Harlow - I immediately got a response/acknowledgement. However, what is interesting was the following,
| Quote: | | Thank you for the update. PocketGPSWorld now require additions/deletions to be confirmed so this could be the reason why your earlier submission/s is absent. |
I then queried if all submissions had to be verified by a third party and got the following response,
| Quote: | | Yes, either by a second independent submission or a site visit by PocketGPSWorld. It should lead to a more reliable database. In the past I acted on reports and some camera markers were removed on false reports. Some time there could be a list of approved submitters but we (including me) will have to wait and see. |
If there is anyone who can confirm the locations of two mobile camera sites at the following locations, then please do so for the benefit of other users.
1. -0.08951,51.76372,Peacock:3"3rdAvenueHarlow"#M
2. -0.10219,51.76675,Peacock:2"2ndAvenueHarlow"#M
The two locations are on the A1025, Harlow, Essex
Graham
_________________
Gee-Pee
Lifetime member PGPSW - time rapidly decreasing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gee-Pee
Lifetime Member
Joined: Feb 10, 2005
Posts: 1951
Location: Mostly somewhere in Essex
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 5:39 pm Post subject: GPS co-ordinates |
|
|
Before anyone corrects me, the two coordinates in my last post should not have the (-) minus sign in front of them. Harlow is East of Greenwich so should be (+) plus.
_________________
Gee-Pee
Lifetime member PGPSW - time rapidly decreasing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Liam
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Apr 11, 2005
Posts: 8
Location: High Wycombe
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I did get an acknowledgment e-mail; it was the subsequent e-mails exchanged with Richard that prompted the post.
In order to get new / removed / altered locations verfied can PGPSW issue a list of un-verified cameras? They could extend the 1 months free subscription to those willing to help verify cameas and make the datbase more accurate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gee-Pee
Lifetime Member
Joined: Feb 10, 2005
Posts: 1951
Location: Mostly somewhere in Essex
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Liam wrote: | I did get an acknowledgment e-mail; it was the subsequent e-mails exchanged with Richard that prompted the post.
In order to get new / removed / altered locations verfied can PGPSW issue a list of un-verified cameras? They could extend the 1 months free subscription to those willing to help verify cameras and make the datbase more accurate. |
My initial thought was, good idea. But then, it would be so easy for an unscrupulous individual to sit at their computer and just confirm the locations.  To overcome that, it would need some data missing so that the verification would have to be done by a personal visit to the site. Even that is open to abuse by the use of Autoroute! Suggestions?
_________________
Gee-Pee
Lifetime member PGPSW - time rapidly decreasing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005
Posts: 19991
Location: West and Southwest London
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gee-Pee wrote: | | Suggestions? |
Don't charge....... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AshleyHinton
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
Posts: 30
Location: Oxfordshire UK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What happens when the camera location happens to be fairly rural, local road?
The chances of someone else using that road, having a GPS & subscribing to the PGPSW speed camera database are a lot less than when a camera is situated on a motorway where 1000's cars pass it every day.
Just wondered.
Regards,
Ashley |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gee-Pee
Lifetime Member
Joined: Feb 10, 2005
Posts: 1951
Location: Mostly somewhere in Essex
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AshleyHinton wrote: | What happens when the camera location happens to be fairly rural, local road?
The chances of someone else using that road, having a GPS & subscribing to the PGPSW speed camera database are a lot less than when a camera is situated on a motorway where 1000's cars pass it every day.
Just wondered.
Regards,
Ashley |
Well, it does not have to be a 'user' to verify the location. After all, Richard did say | Quote: | | Yes, either by a second independent submission or a site visit by PocketGPSWorld. It should lead to a more reliable database. |
So, as well as providing a service to users, they are prepared to verify sites themselves. At the risk of upsetting someone, I cannot see why anyone is getting heated about having to pay for this service. One has a choice, pay or do without. If it appeared that the cost was unreasonable then I too would object. I don't expect to get my Windows software for free (would be nice though). 
_________________
Gee-Pee
Lifetime member PGPSW - time rapidly decreasing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ako
Regular Visitor
Joined: Oct 28, 2004
Posts: 128
Location: Cheshire
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gee-Pee wrote:
| Quote: | | At the risk of upsetting someone, I cannot see why anyone is getting heated about having to pay for this service. One has a choice, pay or do without. If it appeared that the cost was unreasonable then I too would object. I don't expect to get my Windows software for free (would be nice though). |
I don't see why anyone should get upset by you expressing your opinion in the way you have. I see it differently to you. Another post has said there are 25,000 registered members. If half of them take up the yearly subscription that would make upwards of £190,000 per year for a database that was created from the members hard work and a promise that it would be free forever. This amount to me is unreasonable considering most of the work has already been done. Microsoft have never promised any operating system for free (although I agree it would be nice). The problems arise when people who have the same opinion as me get called moaners, whingers, and leeches. I have always paid for all of my operating systems right from DOS through to Win XP and lots of other software as well so I am not just wanting something for nothing. I genuinely think that the numbers are too large for what you will get but we will see. Ultimately you are dead right, as the decision to charge has been made the choices are to pay or do without.
Dave
_________________
Holux231, XDAII Copilot 6, 1Gb Lexar SD Card |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gee-Pee
Lifetime Member
Joined: Feb 10, 2005
Posts: 1951
Location: Mostly somewhere in Essex
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ako wrote: | Gee-Pee wrote:
| Quote: | | At the risk of upsetting someone, I cannot see why anyone is getting heated about having to pay for this service. One has a choice, pay or do without. If it appeared that the cost was unreasonable then I too would object. I don't expect to get my Windows software for free (would be nice though). |
I don't see why anyone should get upset by you expressing your opinion in the way you have. I see it differently to you. Another post has said there are 25,000 registered members. If half of them take up the yearly subscription that would make upwards of £190,000 per year for a database that was created from the members hard work and a promise that it would be free forever. This amount to me is unreasonable considering most of the work has already been done. Microsoft have never promised any operating system for free (although I agree it would be nice). The problems arise when people who have the same opinion as me get called moaners, whingers, and leeches. I have always paid for all of my operating systems right from DOS through to Win XP and lots of other software as well so I am not just wanting something for nothing. I genuinely think that the numbers are too large for what you will get but we will see. Ultimately you are dead right, as the decision to charge has been made the choices are to pay or do without.
Dave |
Dave
That's the sort of reasoned argument, which has its place here. I agree that this sort of language | Quote: | | The problems arise when people who have the same opinion as me get called moaners, whingers, and leeches |
is inflamatory and gets the argument nowhere. We will see if the original proposals will be upheld by PGPSW or if there will be some relaxation or change in the costs etc.
_________________
Gee-Pee
Lifetime member PGPSW - time rapidly decreasing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AshleyHinton
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
Posts: 30
Location: Oxfordshire UK
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just to say my query wasn't on the debate about a paid service, it was saying that in some cases I'm guessing cameras could be added without verification for a good reason.
Its no good having a new spot where the Talivan mobile cameras (for example) like to hang out and it not being added to the database for a few months because its waiting to be verified (meanwhile the "scamera" partnerships are raking in the cash and people are getting points..)
Also if people have submitted data in the past, I guess they can have a good (or bad) track record of camera location accuracy. If a good track record, add 'em in I say - as in some area's they appear to have speed camera breeding programmes 
Regards,
Ashley |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tuppe
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jun 08, 2004
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry to backtrack a little but I've submitted changes and additions to the database in the past but not received a single confirmation.
The problem is that I'll probably end up paying even though I have contributed prior to the cutoff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gee-Pee
Lifetime Member
Joined: Feb 10, 2005
Posts: 1951
Location: Mostly somewhere in Essex
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tuppe wrote: | Sorry to backtrack a little but I've submitted changes and additions to the database in the past but not received a single confirmation.
The problem is that I'll probably end up paying even though I have contributed prior to the cutoff. |
I think you will find reading back in this Forum, that there will be records that will confirm your contribution.
_________________
Gee-Pee
Lifetime member PGPSW - time rapidly decreasing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldie
Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: 22/11/2002 13:33:48
Posts: 992
Location: Surrey, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Liam wrote: | I did get an acknowledgment e-mail; it was the subsequent e-mails exchanged with Richard that prompted the post.
In order to get new / removed / altered locations verfied can PGPSW issue a list of un-verified cameras? They could extend the 1 months free subscription to those willing to help verify cameas and make the datbase more accurate. |
I try to acknowledge the receipt of all emails but I must point out that any opinions expressed in these replies are my own. I am not a member of the PocketGPSWorld team so I cannot, and do not, speak for them. I have added the message about verification because I have received a lot of emails saying "I have have submitted X and Y and they are not in the latest release". You must remember that I process hundreds of emails a month and I do not want to have to keep replying to such messages.
Richard
_________________
Various TomToms, Garmin eTrex Legend, GPSMAP 60CSx, Oregon 550t, Forerunner 405 |
|
| 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
