View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
RavingDave Lifetime Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2006 Posts: 111
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:55 pm Post subject: Icons / Legend shown on Google Map |
|
|
Can anyone tell me where to find a key or legend to the Icons used on the Google Map used on the page to report new cameras.
There is a red light camera I have come across in Guildford which does not appear in the database on my Garmin Nuvi, but when I went to enter a new camera submission I found an icon on the google map where the camera is located. The Icon is a red square with red vertical and horizontal lines across the middle (like a window). What does this icon mean? Why doe it not show on my Garmin when I download the database?
thanks |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Try this thread
"The search button is your friend" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
.... although no-one ever said what the square red ones were! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RavingDave Lifetime Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2006 Posts: 111
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK, thanks I can now see where the description is shown in the status bar.
As you say red square with cross hairs is not shown in the thread that describes the icons.
The google map says that 16634@40 (red square icon) is a redlight - this one does not show up on my Garmin. The other side of the junction on the other carriageway (20784@40) shows a traffic light icon - and this one does show up in Garmin.
Also just further down the road is 22261@40, another redlight, shown as red square+cross hair. This also does not show up on Garmin.
Does red square perhaps mean this camera has been reported, but awaiting verification before being included? I can personally verify 16634 to the tune of 3 points! (pre sat nav I might add)
thanks |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RavingDave wrote: |
Does red square perhaps mean this camera has been reported, but awaiting verification before being included? |
I suspect you're right. Can someone "in the know" confirm?
Sorry to hear about the points, Dave... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MaFt Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15226 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the red squre is a pending redlight camera. i.e. we are awaiting confirmation for that camera. not sure if it should be showing on the map though, i'll check!
MaFt |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RavingDave Lifetime Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2006 Posts: 111
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
How about including a 'pending confirmation' category as an additional database file. Better safe than sorry? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
|
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's a good idea, mate, but you're not the first! People have been suggesting this for quite a while as a way of speeding up the verification process.... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
xda Lifetime Member
Joined: Mar 11, 2004 Posts: 1199 Location: Park Gate
|
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Andy, the down side to this is that it would enable the less than honest to post an update to a pending location without actually driving past the location. _________________ Graham.
TT Go720, App:9.510(1234792.1) OS:842337
GPS: V1.20, Boot: 5.5279, Home: V2.9.5.3093
Map: Europe V910.4892
Map: Europe_Truck V870.3421, Kingston 8GB SD
Nokia 925 Windows 8 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
|
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
xda wrote: | Andy, the down side to this is that it would enable the less than honest to post an update to a pending location without actually driving past the location. |
Sorry, not quite with you...
What would be the point? There is no incentive to be the 2nd to report a camera, other than "the general good", and if you mean they could post an amendment, how would they know what was wrong with the original report if they didn't actually visit the site? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MaFt Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15226 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Andy_P2002 wrote: | xda wrote: | Andy, the down side to this is that it would enable the less than honest to post an update to a pending location without actually driving past the location. |
Sorry, not quite with you...
What would be the point? There is no incentive to be the 2nd to report a camera, other than "the general good", and if you mean they could post an amendment, how would they know what was wrong with the original report if they didn't actually visit the site? |
simple really - they want to screw up the database. if it's got loads of wrong locations then that's not a good thing and would reduce the number of potential subscribers etc etc etc and make the competition look better.
MaFt |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
|
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't think there was any real competition other than TomTom themselves, and they wouldn't stoop that low would they? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RavingDave Lifetime Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2006 Posts: 111
|
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MaFt wrote: |
simple really - they want to screw up the database. if it's got loads of wrong locations then that's not a good thing and would reduce the number of potential subscribers etc etc etc and make the competition look better.
MaFt |
I'd rather have a false alarm show up as an 'unverified site', rather than getting points only to find the infomation was readily available (albeit not verified). Presumably you must have some experience to date to indicate what level of reported sites turn out to be incorrect. I would have thought this was relatively low, and that the level of malicious information would be even lower. Perhaps only include the unverified sites from annual subscribers, the vast majority of which are presumably interested in as complete a database as possible? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
xda Lifetime Member
Joined: Mar 11, 2004 Posts: 1199 Location: Park Gate
|
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Andy_P2002 wrote: | xda wrote: | Andy, the down side to this is that it would enable the less than honest to post an update to a pending location without actually driving past the location. |
Sorry, not quite with you...
What would be the point? There is no incentive to be the 2nd to report a camera, other than "the general good", and if you mean they could post an amendment, how would they know what was wrong with the original report if they didn't actually visit the site? |
Agree there is no incentive, but there are a considerable number of mobile sites being added that if you look at the location there is no were a van can be parked without obstructing the flow of traffic, also the ones that are in but are the blue and white warning signs.
As MaFt pointed out there are those that get some pleasure out of destroying other peoples work.
With the amount of mobile camera sites in the database now I can see why TomTom don't include them in there's. _________________ Graham.
TT Go720, App:9.510(1234792.1) OS:842337
GPS: V1.20, Boot: 5.5279, Home: V2.9.5.3093
Map: Europe V910.4892
Map: Europe_Truck V870.3421, Kingston 8GB SD
Nokia 925 Windows 8 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
|
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All the more reason to publish them as "awaiting confirmation" rather than either leaving them off or just bunging them on "in case".
If it is a daft submission then the person who checks that site can say so. |
|
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 |
|
|
|